[145308] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: he.net down?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Mon Oct 3 19:38:34 2011
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:38:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5186F97B-95D5-4006-AEF9-5D796B2C3347@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Since we're on the topic of DoS. What best practice actions can be taken AF=
TER such an attack?
> Subject: Re: he.net down?
> From: patrick@ianai.net
> Date: Mon=2C 3 Oct 2011 19:33:10 -0400
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>=20
> On Oct 3=2C 2011=2C at 7:25 PM=2C Nate Itkin wrote:
> > On Mon=2C Oct 03=2C 2011 at 11:14:03PM +0000=2C Michael J McCafferty wr=
ote:
> >> Our session with them is up and down at Any2 at OWB.
> >>=20
> >> ------Original Message------
> >> From: Aiden Sullivan
> >> To: nanog@nanog.org
> >> Subject: he.net down?
> >> Sent: Oct 3=2C 2011 3:35 PM
> >>=20
> >> www.he.net seems to be down on both IPv4 and IPv6 -- does anyone know =
what is
> >> going on?
> >> --=20
> >> Aiden
> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >=20
> >=20
> > Blaming DDOS. http://status.linode.com
> >=20
> > "The incident was a probable DDOS attack=2C but its behavior was unusua=
l and difficult to identify. Our network engineers made some adjustments to=
the DOS countermeasures acquired after last week's incident=2C and that se=
ems to have stabilized traffic flow. We apologize for the inconvenience. -B=
en Larsen Hurricane Electric Internet Services"
> >=20
> > Some supporting evidence would be nice.
>=20
> Exactly what do you expect a network which is attacked to post to NANOG=
=2C or a random web page=2C to "prove" they were attacked? Given the 1000s=
of network outages over the last decade=2C I can think of maybe a handful =
that supplied "supporting evidence".
>=20
> As I said before=2C Mike & the gang at HE are stand-up people. If they s=
aid it was a DoS=2C it was a DoS - although I note they did not say it was =
a DoS=2C just probably a DoS. But I extend my faith if their lack of preva=
rication to even statement as well. In fact=2C it speaks well that they ar=
e being equivocal until they are certain themselves.
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN=2C
> patrick
>=20
>=20
=
