-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
It was clear from the highly reliable index I call the "Nanogdex" that nothing was seriously amiss.
Yes, but it got so much bloody press that ambitious copycats can't be too far behind.
When 2 of 13 root systems are affected (>90% loss), how many systems will withstand such an attack when targeted lower within the hierarchy? FWIW, the attack rates did not seem that high.
-Doug
- ------------------------------------ On the same note and this just an observation, I hear two thoughts, some talk not using anycast and then there are others who stand their ground about anycast deployment. Looking at these attacks, F in particular, if my memory serves me correct, there are 35 f-root anycast nodes deployed. Maybe this helped in some respect. Then again, I like to see what kind of analysis comes out from the collected data. regards, /virendra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFyjWbpbZvCIJx1bcRAipMAJ9gNkyYS0BTR4jVrBP8PiZ9CyILDACcC8Jx MNiY9T6Wzi60KtgaK3qLqnM= =kJk7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----