False information: CEO of Versign facts are wrong

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:47:35 -0700
From: Mark Boolootian <booloo@ucsc.edu>
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu

It might be a matter of interpretation. According to

   2.1. Some root name servers were unreachable from many parts of the
   global Internet due to congestion from the attack traffic delivered
   upstream/nearby. While all servers continued to answer all queries they
   received (due to successful overprovisioning of host resources), many
   valid queries were unable to reach some root name servers due to attack-
   related congestion effects, and thus went unanswered.

While I'm not trying to act as Sclavos' apologist, I think you have to
be careful about how you respond to this particular claim of his. You
can't dismiss it out-of-hand. Misleading? Yes. Flat out false? You'd
have to be more convincing.

Sorry, Mark, but we can.

The congestion did not take down 9 of 13 servers, which was Scalvos
claim. It did severely impact ALL Internet traffic and traffic to/from
DNS servers was a part of it.

He did not say that some people could not resolve names. In fact, he
says that they could. He is quoted as saying: "It should scare people
that nine of the 13 went down." No equivocation in that statement.
No accuracy, either.