RE: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.

From: Alex Pilosov (no email)
Date: Sun Feb 03 2008 - 04:13:38 EST

  • Next message: Ben Butler: "RE: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack."

    On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:

    > I sincerely doubt that any backbone provider will filter at a /32. That
    > means they have to check EVERY PACKET AT FULL IP DEST against your AS
    > advertised routes. Since most backbone routers build circuits at the /18
    > and above mask on MPLS, just to keep up with traffic, I sincerely doubt
    > they are going to expend the CPU, and potentially RAM, never mind prefix
    > table entries (you know, those things we're running out of) to have a
    > full table of every host that every hoster says is being DDOSed. In this
    > case, there's a clear economic cost, for no economic benefit (they do
    > actually make money delivering that DDOS traffic).
    "most backbone routers build circuits at the /18 and above mask on MPLS" -
    that part is seriously funny.

    However:
    a) Yes, if such proposal was to be widely accepted, it would generate more
    entries in RIB/FIB.

    b) However, if this service was actually operated by IX's, the limits to
    prevent "too much" growth could be applied centrally (max-prefixes per
    ASN, automatic removal of those routes after X days, unless manually
    requested by host, etc).

    c) Since only your peers will have those :666 entries, it is less "route
    growth" than than the alternative of announcing the affected block as /24
    (which you seem to suggest).

    > A better approach would be to move your DDOS target and all the rest of
    > its co-subnet hosts into a different /24, update the DNS RRs, and cease
    > advertising that /24.
    That...is...perverted. Not to mention, you can't "cease advertising /24".
    what you would need to do is to deaggregate your (say) /20 into /21, /22,
    /23 and /24. That's 3 extra entries in FIB for everyone in the world to
    carry.

    > If you really want to be nice, they don't need to renumber, you just
    > need to stop advertising the target subnet, change the DNS RR's and NAT
    > at your borders, if you control DNS and IP. The added benefit of this is
    > that you can swap them back when the DDOs is over, and they get to stay
    > up while it's happening. All you need to do this is some spare, never to
    > be allocated, IP space.
    That...is...perverted.

    -alex [not speaking as mlc anything]


  • Next message: Ben Butler: "RE: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack."





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD