[39082] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: peering requirements (Re: DDOS anecdotes)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Przemyslaw Karwasiecki)
Tue Jun 26 14:01:08 2001
From: "Przemyslaw Karwasiecki" <karwas@ifxcorp.com>
To: "Paul Vixie" <vixie@mfnx.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:56:35 -0400
Message-ID: <AAELKMGHPOPGPCJPPCLMMEHGCHAA.karwas@ifxcorp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <g3ithjcf24.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
But please don't forget that in this particular DDoS event
there was no IP spoofing.
So anti-spoofing precautions, either on administrative or technical
level, would be useless in this case.
And this case is not so untypical.
my .002$
Przemek
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Paul Vixie
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:44 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: peering requirements (Re: DDOS anecdotes)
Following up on my own post:
vixie@mfnx.net (Paul Vixie) writes:
> Recommendation: upgrade your peering requirements to include language
like:
> ...
Several folks here talked about technical implementation aspects (RPF, etc)
and a few told me privately that peering was a sales/marketing activity at
this stage of the game.
This either means that upgrading the general level of peering agreement is
not possible, or that the people I should be discussing it with don't read
NANOG.
This echos what I learnt at Stephen's BOF in Phoenix.
