R Lists06 wrote:
As you more than likely already know....
...I would encourage you to do consider several things here as realistically
several federal and local laws are being broken here and others have
... ...
We have dealt with issues like this many times and we take note it at layer
3, document it, then get on the horn with super techs (if enough time) and
have them document it too.
Yes, I know. I'm actually one of the supertechs you refer to. Er, at
least top of the food chain in that regard :-)
Law enforcement in Santa Clara is excellent, but they have to focus on
the big fish. This is small stuff to them. It's also just small enough
to fall under the radar of most providers, which argues to me that this
guy is fairly clueful. (guy because so far I've never met a woman who
dealt with their emotional drama in such stupid ways)
A long time ago when a full T1 was bigtime, sometimes people would ping
flood smaller ISP circuits making them unusable at layer 2 and the frame
switches would simply do what they were programmed to do and drop the
packets because a 256k port would be running at well over 100% capacity and
almost every packet was discard eligible etc etc
You pretty much nailed it. The target is a DSL customer, so sending
100mb/sec is isn't enough to raise the eyebrows of any modern service
provider, but the DSL switch receiving that flood gets fairly unhappy
and the target is completely offline.
--
Jo Rhett
Network/Software Engineer
Net Consonance
