|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NOC responses when advised of ongoing DoS attacks (Was Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement))
--- Niels Bakker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --- Scott Granados <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Unless you actually call UUnet and your not a > customer, God help you then. > > * [email protected] (David Barak) [Wed 07 May > 2003, 15:24 CEST]: > > Well, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for > this - > > how many (non-networking) companies will do things > > which don't benefit their customers on behalf of > > someone who is not a customer (and shows no sign > of > > becoming one)? I can't think of any offhand, and > I > > don't think that a whole lot would show up in an > > exhaustive search. > > I'd have thought having a customer *not* waste all > their outgoing > bandwidth on useless data such as participating in a > DoS attack would > make for a happier customer. > > If you're one of those believers in only your own > bottom line, perhaps > the liability stick is a good on to wave in your > general direction in > cases like this? (not stating that you are negligent > when advised of > DoS attacks in progress, of course) > All I'm saying is that it should be expected that customers receive a much higher quality of service (better response time, etc) than non-customers. I've always been surprised that this is an issue - perhaps network people expect a very high altruism quotient from each other? ===== David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
|