You can't really have your cake, and eat it too.
If this is a deal breaker for anyone, getting it in writing within the
contract should be the most basic of steps to undertake. Asking
beforehand will also actually let you know who will and won't do this,
thus avoid surprises like these altogether.
Otherwise, as Mark mentioned, they're entirely within the contractual
agreement.
On 5/13/2014 午後 10:51, Blake Dunlap wrote:
I would personally look at leaving Level 3 over that kind of response.
I consider it basic service to throw a 1 line acl on an interface
temporarily in exceptional circumstances. Transit guys can argue if
they wish, but it won't change my expectations as a customer.
Eventually I'll find a carrier that will offer reasonable service.
I know it's why I kept UUnet back in the day, and dropped all my other
providers at the time. Heck ATT even blackholed our traffic with a
static null, so we were broken even after depeering for several hours
until we could find someone who knew what a route was via their
support.
-Blake
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 11:58:20 PM Petter Bruland wrote:
We contacted Level3 a few weeks back, and were told that
they do not provide any filtering service. I've not been
able to confirm this from anyone else, besides the
Level3 customer service rep we spoke with.
We've received such requests from customers as well, and our
policy is we do not implement any kind of filtering, even
though it is restricted to just one customer.
If the customer is looking for DoS/DDoS Mitigation services,
that is something else that can be offered.
But as an ISP, filtering in the data plane that is not for
the protection of our core's control plane is not our deal.
It is not something I'd ask of my IP Transit provider, nor
support that they do.
Mark.
