Peering with abusers...good or bad?
Fabien VINCENT (NaNOG)
list-nanog at beufa.net
Fri Mar 2 22:20:57 UTC 2018
Le 2018-03-02 23:11, Matthew Petach a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Dan Hollis <goemon at sasami.anime.net> wrote:
>> OVH does not suprise me in the least.
>> Maybe this is finally what it will take to get people to de-peer them.
> If I de-peer them, I pay my upstream to carry the
> attack traffic.
> If I maintain peering with them, the attack traffic is free.
> It would seem the economics work the other way around.
> It would be more cost effective for me to identify the largest sources
> of attacks, and reach out to directly peer with them, to avoid paying
> an upstream to carry the traffic, if I'm going to end up throwing it
> away anyhow.
We are always trying to reply asap on peering at ovh.net if it's network
related (it's not abuse and I don't manage it ;). You're welcome to
share anything wrong so we can mitigate attack with our own antiddos
system, if automatic detection didn't catched it.
We are obviously not responsible for the memcached issue, and we get the
same type / volume of attacks than everyone on input. You should not
have a one way thought, and think about network peering is done with at
least 2 peers which have sometimes the same problem without any direct
_ at beufanet_
More information about the NANOG