[93140] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 thread 93,871,738,435 + SPF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com)
Fri Oct 27 11:54:52 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0610271512590.284@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:53:15 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> > > How is this attack avoided?
> >
> > Sounds like the attack is inherent in SPF. In that case,
>
> how did the thread about dns providers and rfc compliance morph into SPF
> and spam discussions?
Ask Doug Otis. He stated that SPF sets the stage for DDoS
attacks against DNS servers. Presumably he said this because
it points to another *COST* of DDoS that could be used as
a business justification to implement BCP38.
Or you could look at it as a weakness of SPF that should be
used as a justification for discouraging its use. After all
if we discourage botnets because they are DDoS enablers,
shouldn't we discourage other DDoS enablers like SPF?
--Michael Dillon
