[167573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ddos attacks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Thu Dec 19 11:14:08 2013
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:13:48 -0500
From: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1312182002260.10544@soloth.lewis.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/18/13 8:03 PM, "Jon Lewis" <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:12:28 -0800, "cb.list6" said:
>>
>>> I am strongly considering having my upstreams to simply rate limit ipv4
>>> UDP. It is the simplest solution that is proactive.
>>
>> What are the prospects for ipv6 UDP not suffering the same fate?
>
>Roughly 0%, but there's so little v6 traffic compared to v4, you probably
>don't have to worry about v6 attack traffic yet...particularly if you're
>not dual stack yet. :)
-1 uninsightful
Can't find any public data showing IPv6 as a percent of total bits, but
it's certainly a meaningful percent of hits in many countries and networks.
See also
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-
00 which describes risks from IPv6 to people who think they are running an
IPv4-only network.
Lee
