Re: upstream support for flowspec

[Job Snijders <job () instituut net>]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:

> > a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
>
> This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
> to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and going "lol, bill."
>
> If you want to start playing that game, I'm happy to pay more per mbit
> of traffic if you're happy to guarantee me that you won't route me
> traffic that I'm expressly uninterested in.

Would you be willing to pay for the traffic _not_ delivered to you
because of customer-pushed ACLs? If so, that would take the argument
away "because we filter we can't bill". Would you be willing to pay a
premium to be able to do so? Is it worth a premium to insert ACLs in
real time in the upstream's network or is a 2 hour delay acceptable?
what about 5 minute delay? 

Aside from practical issues with flowspec as Ytti mentioned already, I
don't think the market has yet figured out how stuff like this should
work and become cost-effective.

Kind regards,

Job