[95192] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 6 17:16:54 2007
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:54:06 +0100."
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0703062150181.15038@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:15:45 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1173219345_3526P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:54:06 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson said:
> So instead I just drop their spoofed traffic and if they call and say that
> their line is slow, I'll just say it's full and they can themselves track
> down the offending machine and shut it off to solve the problem.
This doesn't sound very scalable. You're almost certainly overcommitted on
the upstream side and likely looking at congestion if many customers are
spewing.
What do you tell the customer who calls and complains that *he* isn't a major
traffic source, but he's seeing dropped packets and delays on your upstream
link? Do you tell him its full and they can track down which other customer
is the offender?
--==_Exmh_1173219345_3526P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFF7egRcC3lWbTT17ARAuH+AJ9O6FiTvw6ZLb7XViLgUD4RfDRbNACg5cvg
SLHq+kto7PmYs7twDlM5QZM=
=WQYI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1173219345_3526P--
