ONS - The few the proud ... the sleeping
sil at infiltrated.net
Wed Aug 15 19:02:07 UTC 2007
Chiloé Temuco wrote:
> My opinion:
> A tier 1 provider does not care what traffic it carries. That is all a
> function of the application not the network.
Providers should start caring about what they're carrying. Haven't seen
one message yet about the hording of "Storm Bot" and what someone is
doing to nip this at the bud. Who better than the big boys. After all
what happens when someone launches this botnet at say Mae-East/West or
some other backbone.
> More or less... The network was intended to move data from one machine
> to another... The less manipulation in the middle the better... No
> manipulation of the payload is the name of the game.
Less manipulation = bad theory/design. Again using examples such as
Nimda, Code Red, etc., why is it that engineers can sit around spend say
- I don't know - an hour a day answering reDumbdant NANOG posts yet
these same engineers can't spend 5 hours in one week looking at "up and
coming" hurricanes on the horizon (Storm Bot anyone). Yet they can spend
another 5 hours a week bitching and moaning about who was on first and
how that bot get on second and it's all Michael Dillon's fault because
it started someone on BT, and then Gadi Evron warned you last month but
you bitched him out so you're now waiting on the gracious Mr. Bellovin
to re-write an entire protocol or say "wow that's a good idea!"...
> SO something similiar to BGP is your inter-AS protocol for establishing
> what is where...
I'm all for it. Let's get another working group to implement this right
after IPv6 in the year 3000. As for the rest of the email... Sorry got
too cumbersome. I was busy writing a response to the next NANOG thread.
"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5157 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the NANOG