I'd expect the Colo's to start "locking this down" about the same time I'd expect ISP's to start implementing BCP38 in earnest. Adam ------ Original Message ------ From: "Dovid Bender" <dovid@telecurve.com> To: "Damian Menscher" <damian@google.com> Cc: "Mody, Nirmal" <Nirmal_Mody@cable.comcast.com>; "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: 2/26/2016 3:43:34 PM Subject: Re: Thank you, Comcast.
Lawsuits? There is no reason the dedicated server I have with a 100meg pipe for $65.00 per month is able to spoof IP's. The colo's should be doing a better job to lock this down.
Regards,
Dovid
-----Original Message----- From: Damian Menscher <damian@google.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:47:43 To: Dovid B<dovid@telecurve.com> Cc: Jared Mauch<jared@puck.nether.net>; Jason Livingood<Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>; Mody, Nirmal<Nirmal_Mody@cable.comcast.com>; NANOG list<nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Thank you, Comcast.
"We all know..." followed by a false statement is amusing.
A significant portion of spoofing originates from North America. In a recent attack I'm reviewing, the top sources of spoofing were the southwestern US, the northwestern US, and east Asia (and almost none from Europe).
If ISPs understood how to collect and review netflow we might get somewhere... why is this so hard, and how do we fix it?
Damian
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:
We all know what countries this traffic is coming from. While you can threaten the local ISP's the ones over seas where the traffic is coming from won't care.
Regards,
Dovid
-----Original Message----- From: Damian Menscher via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:02:52 To: Jared Mauch<jared@puck.nether.net>; Jason Livingood< Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>; Mody, Nirmal< Nirmal_Mody@cable.comcast.com> Reply-To: Damian Menscher <damian@google.com> Cc: NANOG list<nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Thank you, Comcast.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
As a community we need to determine if this background radiation and these responses are proper. I think it's a good response since vendors can't do uRPF at line rate and the major purchasers of BCM switches don't ask for it and aren't doing it, so it's not optimized or does not exist. /sigh
I don't agree with the approach of going after individual reflectors (open*project) or blocking specific ports (Comcast's action here) as both are reactive, unlikely to be particularly effective (there are still millions of reflectors and plenty of open ports available), and don't solve the root problem (spoofed packets making it onto the public internet). What I'd much rather see Comcast do is use their netflow to trace the source of the spoofed packets (one of their peers or transit providers, no doubt) and strongly encourage (using their legal or PR team as needed) them to trace back and stop the spoofing. This benefits everyone in a much more direct and scalable way. Until some of the larger providers start doing that, amplification attacks and other spoofed-source attacks (DNS and synfloods) will continue to thrive.
(I've contacted several ISPs about the spoofed traffic they send to us. The next major hurdle is that so many don't have netflow or other useful monitoring of their networks....)
Damian