[64235] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: False information: CEO of Versign facts are wrong
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Fri Oct 17 13:25:46 2003
To: Mark Boolootian <booloo@ucsc.edu>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from Mark Boolootian <booloo@ucsc.edu>
of "Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:47:35 PDT." <20031017164735.GA37733@root.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:16:53 -0700
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:47:35 -0700
> From: Mark Boolootian <booloo@ucsc.edu>
> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>
> It might be a matter of interpretation. According to
> http://d.root-servers.org/october21.txt:
>
> 2.1. Some root name servers were unreachable from many parts of the
> global Internet due to congestion from the attack traffic delivered
> upstream/nearby. While all servers continued to answer all queries they
> received (due to successful overprovisioning of host resources), many
> valid queries were unable to reach some root name servers due to attack-
> related congestion effects, and thus went unanswered.
>
> While I'm not trying to act as Sclavos' apologist, I think you have to
> be careful about how you respond to this particular claim of his. You
> can't dismiss it out-of-hand. Misleading? Yes. Flat out false? You'd
> have to be more convincing.
>
Sorry, Mark, but we can.
The congestion did not take down 9 of 13 servers, which was Scalvos
claim. It did severely impact ALL Internet traffic and traffic to/from
DNS servers was a part of it.
He did not say that some people could not resolve names. In fact, he
says that they could. He is quoted as saying: "It should scare people
that nine of the 13 went down." No equivocation in that statement.
No accuracy, either.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
