North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
OK... Obviously, you need to do what you need to do to keep things
running. However, that should be a temporary crisis response. If your
equipment is getting DOS'd for more than a few months, we need to find
a way to fix a bigger problem. Permanently breaking some service (regardless
of what we think of it. Personally, I'll be glad to see M$ go down in flames)
is _NOT_ the correct answer.
--On Friday, September 19, 2003 10:14 AM -0700 Matthew Kaufman <email@example.com> wrote:
I agree entirely with this. You shouldn't call yourself an ISP unless you can transport the whole Internet, including those "bad Microsoft ports", between the world and your customers. On the other hand, what's a provider to do when their access hardware can't deal with a pathological set of flows or arp entries? There isn't a good business case to forklift out your DSLAMs and every customer's matching CPE when a couple of ACLs will fix the problem. For that matter, there isn't a very good business case for transporting Nachi's ICMP floods across an international backbone network when you can do a bit of rate-limiting and cut your pipe requirements by 10-20%. Matthew Kaufman firstname.lastname@example.org-----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:03 AM To: Jack Bates; Adam Hall Cc: 'email@example.com' Subject: Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135? FWIW, my opinion is that blocking this at the customer edge per customer request is fine. Any other blocking by an ISP is damage and should be routed around like any other internet damage. Owen