RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Abuse in general

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please see thread "case study: fluxing domains used for unusual purpose" for
a relevant discussion.  Would like to see more examples.

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 10:58 AM
To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Abuse in general

 

This is a very valid point and exposes a shortcoming in our collective
thinking, thanks!

We are guilty of only identifying characteristics of  "fast flux", The Bad
Thing.
By having only this definition, the implication is "if it's not
characteristically fast flux, then it's A Good Thing".

So, it would be useful to create an item list of bunny rabbit networks. 

I'll propose some characteristics to get us started:

*       manipulates TTL values to achieve resiliencey and high availability 
*       runs name and other Internet services, with authorization, on owner-
or agent-operated equipment 
*       uses licensed software installed with informed consent by
owner-operators 
*       uses address blocks assigned to the registrant, registrant's
agents/operators


Perhaps we can continue this on the phone call. See you there.

On 8/8/08 10:42 AM, "George Kirikos" <gk@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Dave,

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Dave Piscitello
<dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm OK with the bunny rabbit thing.
>
> All I ask is that when you use fast flux, you use it in the context of the
> definition we've adopted.

Agreed. I'll do so from now on, but as the chronology demonstrates,
there's been a void in describing the non-criminal aspects, and
hopefully now that we have a proper term to call the underlying
technology (content agnostic) we can avoid confusion (although some
people will still refer to fast flux using a broader definition; just

not us).