[61405] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fw: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Thu Aug 28 14:10:42 2003
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:07:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris@UU.NET>
To: alex@yuriev.com
Cc: "variable@ednet.co.uk" <variable@ednet.co.uk>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10308281407060.21632-100000@s1.yuriev.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 alex@yuriev.com wrote:
> > > anyone else been asked to rate limit by the U.S. Department of Homeland
> > > Security?
> > Just about everyone with a large enough US office was asked by DHS, in a
> > public statement...
>
> Isnt there a difference between "we have been asked" and "we have been
> ordered to"?
I suppose there is, but DHS's request (order/asking whatever) was NOT in
the form of a court order... its:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/verify_redirect.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhs.gov%2Fdhspublic%2Finterweb%2Fassetlibrary%2FAdvisory_Attack_MS.PDF&title=Advisory+-+Potential+Internet+Attack+Targeting+Microsoft+Beginning+August+16%2C+2003+-+August+14%2C+2003
(ouch, how about: http://tinyurl.com/li0i )
and/or
http://tinyurl.com/li0s
Neither is really an 'order' so much as a 'suggestion'.. either way, its
kind of inappropriate to make this suggestion without knowing how each
operator can or could apply a fix... that is my opinion atleast.
