Sobig.f surprise attack today

Thu Aug 28 20:35:19 UTC 2003

On Thursday 28 August 2003 04:24 pm, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 11:14 PM 28/08/2003 +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
> >Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >>I dont think this would work too well.  The users who are infected often
> >>think something is wrong because their connection and computer are not
> >>working quite right. So they disconnect / reconnect / reboot so they burn
> >>through quite a few dynamic IP addresses along the way.
> >
> >This is an artifact of ISP´s wanting to have static IP´s as an add-on
> >premium service
> >so they provide short lease times and change IP as often as it´s feasible
> >without
> >interrupting service unneccessarily.
>
> Huh ?  This is an artifact of the way PM3s and MAX 6096s work with respect
> to how IP addresses are assigned out of pools.... i.e. this is the default
> behaviour.  The same goes for our DSL pool.
>
>          ---Mike

It isn't about wanting to charge more for a static ip per sea, it is more 
about efficient use of address space. If  I have 10K dialup customers, if I 
go to arin and ask for a /18 so each one of my dialup customers can have a 
static ip, what do you think the response is going to be?  

-- 
Patrick Muldoon
Network/Software Engineer
INOC (http://www.inoc.net)
PGPKEY (http://www.inoc.net/~doon)
Key fingerprint = 8F70 6306 F0A7 B8DA BA95  76C4 606A 7DC1 370D 752C

One picture is worth 128K words.