Heads-Up: GoDaddy Broke the Interwebs...
kyle.creyts at gmail.com
Wed Sep 12 04:19:32 UTC 2012
(Arrive at the intended destination, that is)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts at gmail.com> wrote:
> Announcing a prefix doesn't mean that the traffic to those IPs found
> within shall ever arrive.
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Naveen Nathan <naveen at lastninja.net> wrote:
>>>> Well, mostly I'm taking GoDaddy at their word that this was not a DoS attack.
>>>> I also believe it was related to BGP, and am happy to get more info. But we are discussing Anonymous vs. Self-inflicted wound here.
>>> I'm skeptical, BGPlay (http://bgplay.routeviews.org/) doesn't show any withdrawn routes for any of their prefixes over Sep 9-11. Infact, their BGP operation looks fairly operational during the time from what I can gather.
>> a bgp error doesn't HAVE to mean that they withdrew (or even
>> re-announced!) anything to the outside world, does it?
>> for instance:
>> border-router -> internet
>> redistribute your aggregate networks from statics to Null0 on the
>> accept full routes so you can send them to the other borders and
>> make good decisions at the external edge
>> border-router -> internal
>> send default or some version of default via a fitler to internal
>> datacenter routers/aggregation/distribution devices.
>> accept from them (maybe) local subnets that are part of your aggregates
>> now, accidently remove the filter content for the sessions between the
>> border and internal ... oops, your internal devices bounce with
>> 'corrupted tables' (blown tables)... you still send your aggs steadily
>> to the interwebs, wee!
> Kyle Creyts
> Information Assurance Professional
> BSidesDetroit Organizer
Information Assurance Professional
More information about the NANOG