[65381] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Worm Bandwidth [was Re: Santa Fe city government computers knocked out by worm]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stuart Staniford)
Mon Nov 24 20:24:49 2003
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:29:10 -0800
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
To: jmalcolm@uraeus.com
From: Stuart Staniford <stuart@silicondefense.com>
In-Reply-To: <16322.43390.451756.346993@shoggoth.uraeus.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 04:59 PM, jmalcolm@uraeus.com wrote:
> So, essentially, you are saying that the edges (customers, presumably)
> need to be bandwidth-limited to protect the core?
I wasn't advocating a solution, just observing the way things would
have to be for worms to be purely a "buy a bigger box" problem (as I
think Sean was suggesting if I didn't misunderstand him).
> This tends to happen
> anyway due to statistical multiplexing, but is usually not what the
> customers would want if they considered the question, and is not what
> ISPs want if they bill by the bit.
It would generally seem that ISPs would provide more downstream
capacity than upstream, since this saves money and normally not all the
downstream customers will use all their bandwidth at the same time.
But a big worm could well break that last assumption.
So it would seem that worms are, at a minimum, not a simple or
unproblematic capacity management problem.
Stuart.
Stuart Staniford, President Tel: 707-840-9611 x 15
Silicon Defense - Worm Containment - http://www.silicondefense.com/
The Worm/Worm Containment FAQ: http://www.networm.org/faq/
