Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?

[Jeff McAdams <jeffm () iglou com>]

Paul Vixie wrote:
> sean () donelan com (Sean Donelan) writes:
> > If the block list operators think it is a "dialup" range, they
> > pre-emptively block all the addresses in the range.

> that's because at $30/month there's no budget for a "dialup" provider
> to call their worm-infested customers one at a time and talk them 
> through "Windows Update", and the "free" "antivirus" software they
> include on their customer cdroms is crippleware or adware or both.

> providers who refuse to enter the "race to the bottom" can get their
> dialup blocks delisted from any blackhole list operator i know of,
> just by demonstrating clue and conviction.

You're naive on this.  There are enough of these blacklists, and many of
them are totally unresponsive to an ISP's assertions (and empirical
evidence) of aggressive handling of abuse.  I know because I've tried to
do this.  An ISP *cannot* effectively change the status of these IP
blocks...even with empirical evidence of dealing with abuse.  It just
doesn't happen.

> > ... But large DSL or cable address ranges, even if the addresses are
> > statically assigned to specific customers, are pre-emptively blocked.

> there's a sound statistical basis for this.  and a strong abuse desk
> (which would show up as higher-than-$30/month-fees) would change those
> statistics and improve the reputation of that "kind" of address space.

But you were just arguing above that it wasn't a statistical situation,
and that a provider to get unlisted from these blacklists.  Now you're
arguing that its a statistical thing, therefore it *doesn't* have to do
with the empirical actions of the ISP.  This second argument is the
correct one, FWIW.  Its statistical, and an individual ISP effectively
cannot influence their listings on the blacklists.

> rather, i think that your employer and other dsl providers ought to get
> into the $50/month 1U colo business and market this to their power users
> and budget for a strong abuse desk for the small amounts of address space
> used by that function.  (and if you do, please send me the URL and details.)

I'm sorry, Paul, but the "$50/month 1U colo business" that you keep
going on about is, at best, a niche market.  It is not, and will not be,
a substitute for DSL/Cable.  At best, it will be in addition to
DSL/Cable, which means an extra expense for customers, which means that
it will never be more than a niche.

Other's have said, and they are absolutely right, that there is no real
technical difference between a DSL line with a static IP, and a colo box.

There are ISPs out there that are providing clueful DSL service,
including allowing servers on it, with aggressive abuse response, at
competitive price points.  It can be, and is being, done.  Its rare,
yes, but it can be found.

So, the argument that we need to all start selling "$50/month 1U colo
boxes" because responsible DSL service can't be done is bogus.

> it would be marketing suicide to offer a different dsl-dhcp ip address
> to people willing to pay enough to budget for an abuse desk.

You're wrong here.  It can be done, and it can be done profitably.
-- 
Jeff McAdams
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- anonymous

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature