On 9/18/14 1:19 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > 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?
It's not really a question we have to ask. Managed firewall services have way higher margins then pure IP transit. By extension dropping packets can be substantially more profitable especially on a per packet or byte basis then delivering them. Not everyone wants that service however. > 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. Ah cost effective is a consideration, yeah that is a bit of a bummer. > Kind regards, > > Job >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
