Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


BuyVM incompetent DDoS protection setup - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

BuyVM incompetent DDoS protection setup

2»

Comments

  • @vitalis3 said:

    @techhelper1 said: If you know how to do it right and know which provider does, what are you getting from bitching about it here?

    I am here to make a point about BuyVM having a shitty setup and while I have found a suitable host that has been able to cater to my needs for slightly more than what I was paying at BuyVM, this must be annoying for others.

    LowEndTards

    You've made your point

    It's now time to move along

  • @techhelper1 said: So, instead of reaching out in a support case or DMing Francisco with feedback on how to make his platform better, you decided it was much better to bitch about in attempt to drag his name through the mud.

    Do you worship him, as well?

  • @vitalis3 said:

    @techhelper1 said: I'm not the one spouting off insults bro, nor do I complain to the public about a providers network. @Francisco responded, now please move on.

    >just accept it
    >cope and seethe
    >give us your money oy vey

    @techhelper1 said: Something is better than nothing, especially with the latest in XDP/eBPF in Linux these days.

    >repeating shit that corey ray barnhill says, doesn't realise that volumetric attacks will make this all useless

    @Francisco said he would deal with the situation as along as a valid PCAP file was provided. If it happens very rarely, there's little value to reinvent the wheel for this one issue.

    If you have any experience with XDP and eBPF, you'd know full well its capability for dropping packets at linerate before the socket buffers are allocated in the Linux kernel.

  • @vitalis3 said:

    @techhelper1 said: So, instead of reaching out in a support case or DMing Francisco with feedback on how to make his platform better, you decided it was much better to bitch about in attempt to drag his name through the mud.

    Do you worship him, as well?

    Nope, not in the slightest, but everyone here knows how to be a decent human being, unlike you.

    Now as the moderator has said, let's all move on.

  • @techhelper1 said: @Francisco said he would deal with the situation as along as a valid PCAP file was provided. If it happens very rarely, there's little value to reinvent the wheel for this one issue.

    Guess what? I did in fact provide a valid file to support, they did absolutely nothing.

    @techhelper1 said: If you have any experience with XDP and eBPF, you'd know full well its capability for dropping packets at linerate before the socket buffers are allocated in the Linux kernel.

    lol... please stop

    @techhelper1 said: Nope, not in the slightest, but everyone here knows how to be a decent human being, unlike you.

    Gaslighting?

  • ArkasArkas Moderator
    edited November 2022

    @vitalis3 is tinyweasel If no one has figured it out yet.
    Bye tiny!

    Thanked by 1Ganonk
  • @Arkas said:
    @vitalis3 is tinyweasel If no one has figured it out yet.
    Bye tiny

    Pretty sure everyone knew that but was just letting him go to see what he'd say or do next lol

    Thanked by 1Arkas
  • @Arkas said:
    @vitalis3 is tinyweasel If no one has figured it out yet.
    Bye tiny!

    bye tiny .. we are waiting for your come back :D

  • aquaaqua Member, Patron Provider

    Something about these LowEndComplainers is what gives me something to read with my morning coffee. You're paying less than $10-15/mo and expect for a service to spoon feed you full protection and to be given everything on a silver platter. If you expect that, then go purchase MANAGED services at the higher rate and boom problems solved.

  • I don't understand, what is tiny weasel supposed to mean

  • @didtav said:
    I don't understand, what is tiny weasel supposed to mean

    https://lowendtalk.com/profile/tinyweasel

  • @techhelper1 said:

    Nearly all of the LET providers have a similar issue

    What is the benefit of singling out Francisco then?

    Better solution, though, would be an isolated VLAN per host, for the DDoS protected IPs, where all traffic must pass through the WAN.

    More VLANs does not scale for VMs and would eat up more IPs at a quicker rate, forcing Francisco to charge higher prices.

    Things like this always make me grimace a bit. So close to pointing out why the industry needs to rip off the bandage and move to IPv6, without being cognizant of why or how they're so close.

    OSes have supported it reasonably well for a couple of decades. Most major services are dual-stacked anymore. We're at the point of people complaining to their ISPs that "$randomSmallPersonalSite can't be reached but I can on my phone!"

    A whole new world of networking awaits us as low-end enthusiasts, with new and different (though not altogether better) challenges. One of them being that threat models change. I fully expect that when people start converting their servers en masse to IPv6, we'll start seeing a new flavor of skiddie. And, honestly, I'm bored of being on like the third or fourth generation using the same exact tools. But hey, at least source routing isn't still a thing for anyone. Right? Right? >.>

  • @techhelper1 said:

    Nearly all of the LET providers have a similar issue

    What is the benefit of singling out Francisco then?

    Better solution, though, would be an isolated VLAN per host, for the DDoS protected IPs, where all traffic must pass through the WAN.

    More VLANs does not scale for VMs and would eat up more IPs at a quicker rate, forcing Francisco to charge higher prices.

    Where does using VLANs eat up more IP's?

  • @TimboJones said:

    @techhelper1 said:

    Nearly all of the LET providers have a similar issue

    What is the benefit of singling out Francisco then?

    Better solution, though, would be an isolated VLAN per host, for the DDoS protected IPs, where all traffic must pass through the WAN.

    More VLANs does not scale for VMs and would eat up more IPs at a quicker rate, forcing Francisco to charge higher prices.

    Where does using VLANs eat up more IP's?

    I think the logic is that one might want to use a subnet per VLAN, and each subnet is a minimum of 3 IPs: network, host, broadcast.

Sign In or Register to comment.