AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.
jamie
j at arpa.com
Mon Jul 27 04:35:04 UTC 2009
'Wireless backbone'?
K.
I have a dozen confirmations off list in every time zone. SANS ISC is
soliciting technical reports on this; It's on the EFF's Radar.
"This is not a drill"
If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to
any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical
solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even
make my list), you'd have one less customer and quite likely a Tortious
Interference claim..
And, as a (wired) backbone arch, if I ever filtered a host (btw: there are
five IPs in that /24 being filtered by T) that cut off every customer's
access to that host or group, I'd expect to not have a job anymore.
If I wanted filtered Internet, I'd sign up for Prodigy.
Check http://status.4chan.org - they're not moving anything at the moment,
and confirm the filtering.
Debate away, I'm off to bed.
I think 4chan's reaction to this will be bigger than the story itself - No
need for me to argue what will soon be in the News Cycle.
-j
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Shon Elliott <shon at unwiredbb.com> wrote:
>
> Jamie,
>
> Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't
> have
> their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of
> moving,
> so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
>
>
> Regards,
> Shon Elliott
> Senior Network Engineer
> unWired Broadband, Inc.
>
>
> jamie wrote:
> > It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.
> >
> > Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon at unwiredbb.com
> > <mailto:shon at unwiredbb.com>> wrote:
> >
> > There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining
> > about ACK
> > scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to
> > block that
> > single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with
> > the gentleman
> > that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no
> > other way around
> > it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan
> > has been
> > under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire
> > GigE. If you
> > want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of
> > stunt.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shon Elliott
> > Senior Network Engineer
> > unWired Broadband, Inc.
> >
> >
> > jamie wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via
> > u-verse)
> > > has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
> > >
> > > I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears
> > that
> > > these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is,
> each
> > > city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
> > >
> > > The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a
> > discussion), but
> > > this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on
> > the nature
> > > of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from
> > being OT,
> > > that is).
> > >
> > > If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all
> > comments /
> > > direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at
> > ~950E on a
> > > Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing,
> > resolution, action
> > > and, who knows - suit?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
> > >
> > > -jamie
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list