Re: NOC responses when advised of ongoing DoS attacks (Was Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement))

[David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>]

--- Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net> wrote:
> > --- Scott Granados <scott () wworks net> wrote:
> > > Unless you actually call UUnet and your not a
> customer, God help you then.
>
> * thegameiam () yahoo com (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