North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: image stream routers

  • From: tony sarendal
  • Date: Sat Sep 17 17:35:08 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FkmHydpNlA6K8XIVN05rtxj0Y0NpD8/t4xrEdrmbW8XHBZ20i7Od+yOu+jmehpfkW2L8q8EjVFg3dFLHYkh7U0++U1WfvLyyDGudEWvpi/TdVIsEAZvWxhjpYQGmBS1qH5i15n85Q0UvAb5ScN4w9XelNJDOGmR7FnO5NNVCSPY=
> 
> ... until you get an inbound ddos over that shiny gige at 1.44 Mpps. in
> today's world, planning for normal circumstances is woefully insufficient,
> you have to spec based on worst case numbers because you're almost
> guaranteed they will hit your network upside the head in the future.
> 

If I have a GE link and get DDOS'ed at 1.44Mpps I'm on the wrong side
of the bottleneck to do much about it, am I not ?

I don't disagree on that forwarding equipment should be able to handle
worst case situations, but I have never worked on a packet switching
network where that is the case, especially not when counting peers and
transits.