AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

chris rollin 2600hz at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 00:18:15 CDT 2009


Uh.
  You posted on Twitter.

  The most trusted name in [?]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <bambenek at gmail.com> wrote:

> We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
>
> I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as evidence at
> this point.
>
>
> chris rollin wrote:
>
>> Shon wrote:
>>
>> Seth,
>>
>>
>>
>>> I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing that out.
>>> However,
>>>
>>>
>> I
>>
>>
>>> believe the reason they are being blocked at AT&T is the main reason I
>>>
>>>
>> supplied
>>
>>
>>> on my first post. The DDoS attack issue is the main ticket here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The ACK storms arent coming from the 4chan servers
>> It's just like the DNS attack (IN/NS/.).  It points to the stupidity of
>> AT&T
>> uppers
>> SANS: Are you or arent you soliciting data?  I have some to confirm also
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's not
>>> because of content, or to piss people off. It's to protect their network,
>>>
>>>
>> as any
>>
>>
>>> of you would do when you got DDoSed on your own networks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They are going to get some first hand experience in what Protecting their
>> Network
>> involves real soon, now.  Blocking 4chan was an exercise in Stupidity
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's damage control,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's a damage challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>>> essentially, until they find out who is involved and block them, then
>>>
>>>
>> they'll
>>
>>
>>> likely lift the block.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They don't have the right to do this.  Not in their
>> TOS/EULA/User-Agreement.
>>  Not in any sane legal forum.  (I*A*AL)
>>
>>
>>
>>> This ISN'T the first time this has happened.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Now you see the problem ?
>>
>>
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list