morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 19:53:07 UTC 2011
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Stefan Fouant
<sfouant at shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 1:54 PM, Andreas Echavez wrote:
>> obviously they will get blocked. My personal experience is that when
>> dealing with a DoS at the scale that you need Prolexic, there is simply no
>> one else that can handle that level of traffic.
> I think there are a lot of people on this list that would argue with that
> statement. As was mentioned earlier, AT&T, Verizon, and several others
> including Verisign have very ample networks capable of handling attacks just
> as large as Prolexic, if not bigger.
> One thing to note about Prolexic, where it stands out from some of the
> others is that it is a completely off-net solution. Many of the other
> offerings from folks like Verizon require you to have WAN circuits connected
> to their network in order to avail of such a service (in other words, they
> will only scrub that which would normally traverse their network on it's way
> towards your WAN interface).
> Others like Verisign have (smartly) adopted a similar model to that of
> Prolexic. They understand that requiring a physical connection into a
> provider's cloud is a monolithic approach (and certainly runs counter to
> today's mantra of offering up cloud-based services).
but... often the cost of scrubbing includes the cost of transit
to/from the remote provider, which is why 'cheapest' only counts for
an entire process, NOT for 'lookie, I bought the service!'.
either way, folks will learn one way or the other which works for them.
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ER, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
More information about the NANOG