Filter NTP traffic by packet size?

Sun Feb 23 14:58:36 UTC 2014

Ive talked to some major peering exchanges and they refuse to take any action. Possibly if the requests come from many peering participants it will be taken more seriously?

> On Feb 22, 2014, at 19:23, "Peter Phaal" <peter.phaal at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Brocade demonstrated how peering exchanges can selectively filter
> large NTP reflection flows using the sFlow monitoring and hybrid port
> OpenFlow capabilities of their MLXe switches at last week's Network
> Field Day event.
> 
> http://blog.sflow.com/2014/02/nfd7-real-time-sdn-and-nfv-analytics_1986.html
> 
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Chris Laffin <claffin at peer1.com> wrote:
>> Has anyone talked about policing ntp everywhere. Normal traffic levels are extremely low but the ddos traffic is very high. It would be really cool if peering exchanges could police ntp on their connected members.
>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2014, at 8:05, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster at mykolab.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>> 
>>>>> On 2/22/2014 7:06 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 22/02/2014 09:07, Cb B wrote:
>>>>> Summary IETF response:  The problem i described is already solved
>>>>> by bcp38, nothing to see here, carry on with UDP
>>>> 
>>>> udp is here to stay.  Denying this is no more useful than trying to
>>>> push the tide back with a teaspoon.
>>> 
>>> Yes, udp is here to stay, and I quote Randy Bush on this, "I encourage
>>> my competitors to block udp."  :-p
>>> 
>>> - - ferg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - --
>>> Paul Ferguson
>>> VP Threat Intelligence, IID
>>> PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
>>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>> 
>>> iF4EAREIAAYFAlMIynoACgkQKJasdVTchbJsqQD/ZVz5vYaIAEv/z2kbU6kEM+KS
>>> OQx2XcSkU7r02wNDytoBANVkgZQalF40vhQED+6KyKv7xL1VfxQg1W8T4drh+6/M
>>> =FTxg
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 