[145971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Colocation providers and ACL requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Ashton)
Thu Oct 27 23:11:44 2011
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Ashton <james@gitflorida.com>
To: Christopher Pilkington <cjp@0x1.net>
In-Reply-To: <B671B0C8-45EA-40A6-A7C9-0EB2C217B1C7@0x1.net>
Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: James Ashton <james@gitflorida.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Christopher,
This is pretty common policy. Not many datacenters of any size is going t=
o act differently. If you don't purchase this service then you will not ge=
t the service.
They may be willing work work with you on black-holing problem IPs though.=
This is pretty common, but don't expect a filtering package without purch=
asing it.
James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Pilkington" <cjp@0x1.net>
To: "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:43:00 PM
Subject: Colocation providers and ACL requests
Is it common in the industry for a colocation provider, when requested to p=
ut an egress ACL facing us such as:
deny udp any a.b.c.d/24 eq 80
=E2=80=A6to refuse and tell us we must subscribe to their managed DDOS prod=
uct?
-cjp
