AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

chris rollin 2600hz at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 00:14:03 CDT 2009


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