GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)

Thu Aug 28 13:26:06 UTC 2003

NAC is not a global intercontinental super-duper backbone, but we do the
same.

It takes some education to the customers, but after they understand why,
most are receptive.

Especially when they get DOS'ed.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 variable at ednet.co.uk wrote:

>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, jlewis at lewis.org wrote:
>
> > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't
> > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're
> > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent
> > to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and
> > forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice
> > MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations.
>
> We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced
> ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago.  This means that any traceroutes/pings
> through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss).  After
> contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP
> rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not
> remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable
> future.
>
> What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich
>