[145879] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Colocation providers and ACL requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keegan Holley)
Tue Oct 25 15:10:05 2011
In-Reply-To: <CADE4tYVeKmiXLaC9Byz=xQYANTj7MTbhEOW6sFOLLWx=uo35Eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keegan Holley <keegan.holley@sungard.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:08:20 -0400
To: Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
2011/10/25 Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Keegan Holley <keegan.holley@sungard.com>wrote:
>
>> Depends on the provider. Many just do not want to manage hundreds of
>> customer ACL's on access routers. Especially when it would compete with a
>> managed service (firewall, IDP, DDOS) of some sort. Some still are under
>> the impression that ACL's are software based and their giant $100k+ edge
>> box
>> would crash if they configured them for any reason.
>>
>>
> Conversely, some don't want to be paid for bare colocation (at bare
> colocation prices) and have to then support 1000+ rules (yes, 1000+) with
> 10-20 change requests per day. YMMV/slippery slope/service scope/etc.
>
They are no worse than route filters or bandwidth increases, or IP address
requests/changes. The provider should be able to do a temporary filter if
the customer needs it though rather than forcing them to wait weeks or
months to install a managed service/device. I agree permanent custom ACL's
with indefinite growth/management could be considered a managed service and
should either be an additional charge or not allowed at all.
