- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Carrier-grade DDoS Attack mitigation appliance
by dennis＠justipit.com 12 Dec '14

12 Dec '14

Yes. The industry is undergoing a shift from cloud or premise based ddos appliance to a hybrid model where some or all (premise gear and cloud scrubbing) of the solution is offered as a service. Equipment vendors such as Radware & Arbor offer either directly or through partnerships also seeing the cloud scrubbing providers to offer premise gear. Sent from my Sprint phone. ----- Reply message ----- From: "Javier J" <javier(a)advancedmachines.us> To: "James Braunegg" <james.braunegg(a)micron21.com> Cc: "nanog" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Carrier-grade DDoS Attack mitigation appliance Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:39 PM What about DDOS protection as a service? is that something that is being offered by more than a few vendors? I know of only one that exists through a friend. They basically start advertising your bgp routes, filter out the junk, and send the good traffic back to you. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:08 AM, James Braunegg <james.braunegg(a)micron21.com > wrote: > Dear All > > > > We use a combination of NSFOCUS hardware (ADS, ADS-m and NTA along with > A10 Hardware) > > > > All of which I highly recommend ! > > > > Kindest Regards > > > James Braunegg > P: 1300 769 972 | M: 0488 997 207 | D: (03) 9751 7616 > E: james.braunegg(a)micron21.com<mailto:james.braunegg@micron21.com> | > ABN: 12 109 977 666 > W: www.micron21.com/ddos-protection< > http://www.micron21.com/ddos-protection> T: @micron21 > > > [Description: Description: Description: Description: M21.jpg] > This message is intended for the addressee named above. It may contain > privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended > recipient of this message you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose it > to anyone other than the addressee. If you have received this message in > error please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then > delete the message from your computer. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Parrish, Luke > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:08 AM > To: J. Tozo > Cc: nanog > Subject: RE: Carrier-grade DDoS Attack mitigation appliance > > > > Switch to Nemo. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of J. Tozo > > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 3:26 PM > > Cc: nanog > > Subject: Re: Carrier-grade DDoS Attack mitigation appliance > > > > We also evaluating another appliance to put in place of Arbor, their > "support" outside USA its a joke. > > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Ammar Zuberi <ammar(a)fastreturn.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We're currently running the Arbor Peakflow SP with the TMS and it > > > works very well for us. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Ammar Zuberi > > > FastReturn, Inc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Direct Line: +971 50 394 7299 > > > Email: ammar(a)fastreturn.net > > > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. > > > If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply > > > and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or > > > disclose its contents to anyone. Please note that any views or > > > opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do > > > not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient > > > should check this email and any attachments for the presence of > > > viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any > virus transmitted by this email. > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Tony McKay > > > <Tony.McKay(a)RitterCommunications.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anyone on list currently use Peakflow SP from Arbor with TMS, > > > > and > > > is it truly a carrier grade DDoS detection and mitigation platform? > > > Anyone have any experience with Plixir? > > > > > > > > Tony McKay > > > > Dir. Of Network Operations > > > > Office: 870.336.3449 > > > > Mobile: 870.243.0058 > > > > -The boundary to your comfort zone fades a little each time you > > > > cross > > > it. Raise your limits by pushing them. > > > > > > > > This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or > > > > privileged > > > information. If you believe that you have received this message in > > > error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the > > > message without copying or disclosing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed > > > > Kamal > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 2:10 PM > > > > To: nanog > > > > Subject: Carrier-grade DDoS Attack mitigation appliance > > > > > > > > > > > > Have anyone tried any DDoS attack mitigation appliance rather than > > > > Arbor > > > PeakFlow TMS? I need it to be carrier-grade in terms of capacity and > > > redundancy, and as far as I know, Arbor is the only product in the > > > market which offers a "clean pipe" volume of traffic, so if the DDoS > > > attack volume is, for example, 1Tbps, they will grant you for example > > > 50Gbps of clean traffic. > > > > > > > > Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions, and open-source products that > > > > can > > > do the same purpose, we have network development team that can work on > this. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mohamed Kamal > > > > Core Network Sr. Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Grato, > > > > Tozo > > ________________________________ > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or > legally privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or > other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material > from all computers. > > > > ________________________________ >

1 0

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
by Larry Sheldon 12 Dec '14

12 Dec '14

On 12/11/2014 17:42, Scott Helms wrote: > Perhaps we should balance that against what a subscriber might pay for > bandwidth while away from home, especially in Europe. Why would that interest me--I have no interest in traveling anywhere. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

2 1

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
by Larry Sheldon 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

On 12/11/2014 16:29, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Larry Sheldon" <larrysheldon(a)cox.net> > >> On 12/11/2014 07:10, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> What Comcast is stealing is electricity. Pennies per customer times >>> a boatload of customers. >> >> .....and floorspace, physical security, air conditioning, and all >> sorts of labor overheads. > > Nope; at that stage, Larry, you're makin it up. > > In the particular case we're talking about here, Comcast -- who are not my > favorite people by any means -- have *enabled a feature built into the > terminal device they're provisioning*. It *might* increase the overall > power consumption of that device by as much as 5-10 Wh/*month*. The > increase in A/C won't register on the chart. Physical security is no different > than it was otherwise: none. And floorspace and labor? It is, as they say, > to laugh. > > If we want to diss Comcast, let us not descend to things they *are not* doing; > there are plenty of dissable things they *are* doing. Do me a favor and re-write your message from the standpoint of what the "provider" would have to pay for if they were not extorting the customers. You don't need to respond unless that changes your thinking. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

2 1

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
by Larry Sheldon 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

On 12/11/2014 07:10, William Herrin wrote: > What Comcast is stealing is electricity. Pennies per customer times a > boatload of customers. .....and floorspace, physical security, air conditioning, and all sorts of labor overheads. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

2 1

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
by Larry Sheldon 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

On 12/11/2014 11:54, Livingood, Jason wrote: > Now..they are doing this on your electric bill and taking up space > (albeit a small amount of it) in your home. Tell me I need a tin-foil hat if you like, but in the current news there is reason to believe that the risk is real and actual that the police with their hot-shot-super-sniffer determine that your house is the source of a pedophile database operation supplying the neighborhood weirdos, and come around at 3 SM and shoot your dogs, lob a grenade into the baby's crib and eventually burn your house and wife down. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

1 0

Re: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?!
by Yucong Sun 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

It is not the same thing though. In my case, they just say we want you to buy our IP, if you don't and want use you own Arin allocated IP blocks through bgp, then we got to charge you anyway! Because why couldn't they? On Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 00:21 Maximilian Baehring <maximilian(a)baehring.at> wrote: > Europe: It costs 50 euros yearly fee per PI-Space Resource without the > anouncment ppayable via a LIR. They cahreg - in my case - additional 25 > Euros for the financial transaction with Ripe. The cheapest possible > anouncment is via TWO Route-Servers and the minimum required for this is a > VPS (not openVZ which cannot run the routing daemon) Linux-KVM with Quagga! > http://www.openpeering.nl/shoppinglist.shtml - http://www.ripe.net/lir- > services/member-support/info/billing/billing-procedure-and- > fee-schedule-2014 > > mit freundlichem Gru&SZlig; / Yours sincerely > > Maximilian Baehring > Hoelderlinstrasse 4 > 60316 Frankfurt a.M. > Germany > maximilian(a)baehring.at > Fon: +49 (0)69 17320776 > Fon: +49 (0)176 65605075 > Fon: +49 (0)174 3639226 > Fax: +49 (0)69 67831634 > > -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > mQGiBFRbtw0RBACmtrehmuVpR0EiXlEcdl9AttnGlK7BvVidu+EEJAg8bpnzxZ3G > nGF2Z4LDSnEJid4nDs4ey7lAlkQ0bVozcmutyCvQo2JXNwjtVlMFR3ePuHGcgn6i > 55bFw2aMhth5d//3MoYAXk/PeFH2zZtWwq6WVIYN4YIIPLT/j7nEElndnwCglQHs > jDVQcAGmqZeJBA+j2SwIIjMD/1yy/tq7qyQ2O12+f4mIVLNY6+lTmg9jQu3y0jiw > fT7xKQ3e4YSsYUxZM03Uw8XHL9OqDhKROppx1D0ywSaHzdFi14VBU0B1rv5ZUFbF > IkO06R8dFl8HOoEwaplPtr1e6b17oM0KkLRf15nPi39pmnr8IYtpArQTV83Twmgz > L65vA/47+UZi618F5UafoXqmRPoSnz7Bcfrk84I8WmSDqXY/VqD35DdYFz0pzCY9 > R2wk7ivxfF/cbPSrq9WUqbDGlcso96FlbqWdtPROuQQqepn3giOxDTY5RqhG0M3d > IVdja94U08K7ypbI7pPJbl8fb8wSJ0qHdRvnvx5HnHqXd/uA4LQsTWF4aW1pbGlh > biBCYWVocmluZyA8bWF4aW1pbGlhbkBiYWVocmluZy5hdD6IYwQTEQIAIwUCVFu3 > DQIbAwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEH2oe7epzbrju5cAn3P3 > 0/S+fIMLHYUCDBIpeEl/Cw5uAJ9smUUUHwh2M0SkJAxEmec4mpaDI7kBDQRUW7cN > EAQAkHhbnFMtkJeMbyb9HnlwGRQ8/W2NV4mfHTce/c2ggtionOYcPi1BXBN2Nq/w > knfQDAbnwrSk21xZ//BN8CE570cEGgLAN3ILyvmjXwBtLfKDpe/RYVskjxFgMtQ1 > lz7BiU9MfrVDWKNP1PJPSAAjcWPPgIJVzFjbIrOC1DKeR9sAAwUD/RsSBkJVmfA3 > NnK/vRnZMQ9sgUiXVYblJHXxnCvGVSz6rWRdR3jrQrALYeCkqbGEZAoX7PhLUwG5 > +c+nwhbKgnSI5VkwTxTf5To/sKfGY/ZU7uVKdNT3OG6fon5kSv+1neXD2ekFoD5G > NV2DqzaXq4kjIi3gfgU0PpeMpHyNsyA7iEkEGBECAAkFAlRbtw0CGwwACgkQfah7 > t6nNuuMXqQCZAfBvDdJ/9S8qK6u/yVo6t9cxtpkAn3XJsfNKK4YwRgL68p6eK8uA > +VIJ > =kOqh > -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+maximilian=baehring.at@nanog.org] On > Behalf Of Yucong Sun > Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2014 07:27 > To: NANOG > Subject: Charging fee for BGP prefix per /24?! > > Hi, > > My recent inquiry to some network provider reveals that they are charging > fee for per /24 announced. Obvious that would means they get to charge a > lot with little to none efforts on their side. > > In a world we are charging total bytes transferred instead of bps on > uplinks, i can't say I'm surprised that much. But does anyone else had same > experience? Did you pay? Is this the new status quo now? > > Thanks. > >

4 4

RE: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
by Mr Bugs 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Jeroen, Not that I agree with this practice, I specifically got my own modem because of this (and to have it directly attached to a real router) , however they use a separate DOCSIS and 802.11 channel so if would follow that it would be a separate IP tied to comcast corporate and not the subscriber as well as not taking up your bandwidth. The bandwidth issue seems to be the only thing they can imagine people being worried about and when you complain its the only thing they talk about, making sure you know it wont take up any of your speed or quota.

6 7

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
by Harry Hoffman 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Or, ya know you could just buy your own cable modem and separate AP. Cheaper then renting from Comcast and gives you the control :-) Cheers, Harry On Dec 10, 2014 9:35 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen(a)mompl.net> wrote: > > Why am I not surprised? > > Whose fault would it be if your comcast installed public wifi would be > abused to download illegal material or launch a botnet, to name some > random fun one could have on your behalf. :-/ > > (apologies if this was posted already, couldn't find an email about it > on the list) > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/10/disgruntled_customers_lob_sueball_a… > > "A mother and daughter are suing Comcast claiming the cable giant's > router in their home was offering public Wi-Fi without their permission. > > Comcast-supplied routers broadcast an encrypted, private wireless > network for people at home, plus a non-encrypted network called > XfinityWiFi that can be used by nearby subscribers. So if you're passing > by a fellow user's home, you can lock onto their public Wi-Fi, log in > using your Comcast username and password, and use that home's bandwidth. > > However, Toyer Grear, 39, and daughter Joycelyn Harris – who live > together in Alameda County, California – say they never gave Comcast > permission to run a public network from their home cable connection. > > In a lawsuit [PDF] filed in the northern district of the golden state, > the pair accuse the ISP of breaking the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and > two other laws. > > Grear – a paralegal – and her daughter claim the Xfinity hotspot is an > unauthorized intrusion into their private home, places a "vast" burden > on electricity bills, opens them up to attacks by hackers, and > "degrades" their bandwidth. > > "Comcast does not, however, obtain the customer's authorization prior to > engaging in this use of the customer's equipment and internet service > for public, non-household use," the suit claims. > > "Indeed, without obtaining its customers' authorization for this > additional use of their equipment and resources, over which the customer > has no control, Comcast has externalized the costs of its national Wi-Fi > network onto its customers." > > The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for themselves and on behalf > of all Comcast customers nation-wide in their class-action case – the > service was rolled out to 20 million customers this year." > > -- > Earthquake Magnitude: 4.8 > Date: 2014-12-10 22:10:36.800 UTC > Date Local: 2014-12-10 13:10:36 PST > Location: 120km W of Panguna, Papua New Guinea > Latitude: -6.265; Longitude: 154.4004 > Depth: 35 km | e-quake.org

1 0

Carrier-grade DDoS Attack mitigation appliance
by Mohamed Kamal 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Have anyone tried any DDoS attack mitigation appliance rather than Arbor PeakFlow TMS? I need it to be carrier-grade in terms of capacity and redundancy, and as far as I know, Arbor is the only product in the market which offers a "clean pipe" volume of traffic, so if the DDoS attack volume is, for example, 1Tbps, they will grant you for example 50Gbps of clean traffic. Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions, and open-source products that can do the same purpose, we have network development team that can work on this. Thanks. -- Mohamed Kamal Core Network Sr. Engineer

11 11

RE: Relative cost of ONT and UPS for FTTP
by Brian R 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Jean-Francois, We use the Adtran ONT solutions. The configuration is Adtran TA5000 with an Active Ethernet 24-Port Module (1187561F1) feeding an ONT TA324E (1287737G2) at the customer premise. For power we are using the Cyber Power CSN27U12v-NA3 units. The clam shell we are using to put the ONT in is TA350 ONT NID HSG SPLICE (1187770G1) All of these part numbers should be available on Adtrans website to look up. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:27 PM > To: Nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Relative cost of ONT and UPS for FTTP > > At recent hearings, I stuck my foot deep into my mouth (as I often do). > > So I am now tasked to find the relative cost of the ONT/UPS compared to the cost of the FTTP drop to the home (in a Flexnap environment). > > From what I had read in the past, the ONT/UPS represent a major portion of the costs to connect a home to an existing Flexnap FTTP system as the drop itself is now dirt cheap to install with unskilled workforce (no need for laser splicing since flexnap is plug and play). > > I know that the Aussie NBN had considered ditching the UPS to greatly reduce the cost to reduce homes, so I have to hunt down those documents (which predate existing pro-copper govt). > > > Does ayone have numbers for ONT/UPS or could point me to such ? > I assume manpower to install the ONT/UPS in homes is a large part of the cost inside the home ? > > > And is there any evidence that the actual drop to the home with Flexnap FTTP is cheaper than a drop using copper from the splice panel on pole to the home ? > > Any/all information would be helpful. (this is convince the regulator that an independent ISP who buys the ONT/UPS to be used by one of its customers relieves the incumbent telco from a major portion of the cost to connect a home, which, according to telcos, represent 1/3 of total cost of FTTP deployment. > >

1 0