On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:50 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:27:14 -0400
> Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
>> John's statement was in the context of general advice to be included
>> in a BCOP document and I felt compelled to say "whoa there".
ok, that was my reaction as well.
> My inten
Other phrases can be substituted.
"no guts, no glory"
"go big or go home"
"no pain, no pain"
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Scott Weeks
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:41 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:27:14 -0400
Rob Seastrom wrote:
> John's statement was in the context of general advice to be included
> in a BCOP document and I felt compelled to say "whoa there".
My intent was for it to be taken as a DDoS mitigation response option,
not as a general practice.
John
Christopher Morrow writes:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>>
>> John Kristoff writes:
>>
>>> If the attack is an infrastructure attack, say a routing interface that
>>> wouldn't normally receive or emit traffic from its assigned address
>>> except perhaps for network co
--
> measures". I volunteer to write the article on "YOLO upgrades",
> wherein one loads untested software on equipment with no OOB, types
> "request system reboot", shouts "YOLO", and hits return.
:: YOLO
-
If a manager forces me to do
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> John Kristoff writes:
>
>> If the attack is an infrastructure attack, say a routing interface that
>> wouldn't normally receive or emit traffic from its assigned address
>> except perhaps for network connectivity testing (e.g. traceroute) o
On 3/24/15 5:27 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
John Kristoff writes:
If the attack is an infrastructure attack, say a routing interface that
wouldn't normally receive or emit traffic from its assigned address
except perhaps for network connectivity testing (e.g. traceroute) or
control link local co
John Kristoff writes:
> If the attack is an infrastructure attack, say a routing interface that
> wouldn't normally receive or emit traffic from its assigned address
> except perhaps for network connectivity testing (e.g. traceroute) or
> control link local control traffic (e.g. local SPF adjace
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:00:14 -0400
Yardiel D.Fuentes wrote:
> Since there have been good feedback for this BCOP. The committee
> decided to extend the "last-call period" for another two weeks to
> give ample chance to further feedback.
>
> So, it is not late for more comments,
Hi Yardiel,
Nice
Thank you all who have contributed your feedback, comments and discussion
points towards the DDoS/DoS attack BCOP.
I have updated the current version of the BCOP with the agreed upon feedback:
http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/BCOP_Drafts
Since there have been good feedback for this BCOP. The co
Hello NANOGers,
Following up on the below effort from last year, the DDoS/DoS Attack BCOP Draft
document is ready for the last call 2-week period. After this period and unless
notable objections are raised, the current document will be ratified as such.
The current document can be found in th
11 matches
Mail list logo
