|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org> To: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:14:26 +0000 In-Reply-To: <39905.1364476982@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Surely the question is what was the impact? If I had just installed 3 new 100G iinks the day before then its going to be a lot bigger than if I didn't haven them. In my view this was a minor blip, but very well sniper rifled at Cloudflare - they have a lot of pissed off customers looking the blog they have.=20 Folks need to fix there infrastructure so this doesn't happen though. On 28/03/2013 13:23, "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: >So we all have heard the breathless news reports of how the recent >urinating contest between Spamhaus and a butthurt ISP was the "biggest >in history". > >Where would you guys put it, if measured as "percent of total worldwide >available Internet bandwidth/resources"? My gut feeling is that by that >metric, it didn't even make the top 20. Think back to the Morris worm, or >Blaster/Nachi/etc - *nobody* had any free bandwidth when those happened. >And >even if you restrict the discussion to intentional targeted attacks, I'm >sure >we've had worse (Smurf, anybody? :) >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |