[145893] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Colocation providers and ACL requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keegan Holley)
Tue Oct 25 21:22:59 2011
In-Reply-To: <4EA75117.4070508@paulgraydon.co.uk>
From: Keegan Holley <keegan.holley@sungard.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:21:15 -0400
To: Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo providers
don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only) customers=
.
2011/10/25 Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
> On 10/25/2011 08:43 AM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
>
>> Is it common in the industry for a colocation provider, when requested t=
o
>> put an egress ACL facing us such as:
>>
>> deny udp any a.b.c.d/24 eq 80
>>
>> =85to refuse and tell us we must subscribe to their managed DDOS product=
?
>>
>> -cjp
>>
>>
>> For colo? No, filtering is the customers concern, unless failure to do
> so is causing a problem for the colo network. Such services are almost
> always paid for add-ons to a colo package. The colocation business is
> usually fairly low on the profit margin with most companies trying to get
> away with the bare minimum possible over and above the basics.
>
>
>
