Hey, QWEST clean up your network

Fri Aug 29 03:36:37 UTC 2003

Not sure how many places you intend to post this or related
messages, but if you've got a problem vote with your money.
Whining to NANOG and a slew of other mailing lists and still
giving money to Qwest seems silly to me...

Likewise, the Qwest folks likely aren't quite as clueless as
you've attempted to portray them over the last few days, silly
policies (policies that are clearly in place for a reason) can
be fixed -- and I assure you, above all else, money talks...

-danny

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 09:25 PM, John Brown wrote:

>
>
> Seems like QWEST doesn't have any edge ACL's in place to deal
> with this lovely worm issue.
>
> Count           Source Prexix, rounded up to a /16
>
> 144             208.46.0.0
> 199             65.114.0.0
> 347             208.45.0.0
> 462             65.118.0.0
> 486             65.119.0.0
> 702             208.44.0.0
> ----
> 2340		TOTAL Packets out of 2500 for 2 seconds
>
> This is ICMP and TCP MS bad traffic for a 2500 packet
> capture on a DS1 that is directly connected to Qwest.
> Ergo, Qwest is the transit provider.  Capture period
> was about 2 seconds.  ICK
>
> According to Qwest Tech/Noc people they can't leave
> filters up for more than 1 day.
>
> Given that this worm has lasted more than 1 day, I'd
> think its reasonable to leave filters up for say more
> than one day ????
>
>
> The other thing I learned from QWEST IP-NOC was that
> it seems managment decided *NOT TO* filter packets related
> to this worm issue at the edge......
>
> john brown
> AS 10480 and others
>