This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[atlas] Spoofing measurenments
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Spoofing measurenments
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Probe with no firmware
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrei Robachevsky
robachevsky at isoc.org
Fri Nov 27 17:40:08 CET 2015
Nick Hilliard wrote on 23/11/15 13:11: > On 23/11/2015 12:03, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> Why exactly do we need to know the exact amount of this problem? > > it would be useful to know the sources of the problem. > Agree. It is also important to be able to track the overall trend. Stats on volumetric DDoS attacks are not a good indicator, since they depend on other factors like number and amplification capabilities of reflectors and botnet parameters. I doubt that without good measurements and traceability we can effectively address this problem. Having said that I do not think Atlas can really help. Atlas can only offer a fraction of devices that can effectively spoof (although I heard that not every NAT device prevents spoofing for any IP range). And its deployment is not uniform, so the results won't be more statistically representative than those from Spoofer (http://spoofer.caida.org/). Sigh... Andrei
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Spoofing measurenments
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Probe with no firmware
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]