AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

Joel Esler eslerj at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 08:05:42 CDT 2009


I posted it on Twitter.  And I was talking with John at the time.   
We're observing the information that is coming in,   but it's hard to  
verify something like that when:

A) We haven't heard from our contacts at AT&T.
B)  The only information we are seeing "confirming" it is on open  
mailing lists, and no offense, but given 4chan's proclivity in  
spreading disinformation extremely well....
C)  I don't know if we want to take the word of moot directly from the  
4chan website either.

I've read in a couple places that the connectivity is coming back up,  
I have a hard time believing that AT&T would do this, and even if they  
did, they did it for a legit reason (maybe a DDOS?)

J

On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:19 AM, John Bambenek wrote:

> Someone else posted on twitter, I saw it recently.
>
> To make it even clearer, we'll take your data, sure.  Just don't  
> expect us to jump on it until we verify with something solid.
>
> chris rollin wrote:
>> Uh.
>>
>>  You posted on Twitter.
>>
>>  The most trusted name in [?]
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <bambenek at gmail.com  
>> <mailto:bambenek at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
>>
>>    I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as
>>    evidence at this point.
>>
>>
>>    chris rollin wrote:
>>
>>        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 ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Joel Esler
  http://www.joelesler.nethttp://www.twitter.com/joelesler
[m]





More information about the NANOG mailing list