[179226] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP offloading (fixing legacy router BGP scalability issues)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Apr 3 16:41:43 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: goemon@anime.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:08:40 -0700."
<Pine.LNX.4.64.1504031304580.2858@sasami.anime.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 16:41:11 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1428093671_2034P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:08:40 -0700, goemon@anime.net said:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Barry Shein wrote:
> > On April 2, 2015 at 14:19 goemon@anime.net (goemon@anime.net) wrote:
> > > a number of years back i did have someone contact in chinese and the
> > > response was that the customer was doing nothing wrong.
> > Ok, that's progress of a sort, what's the authoritative source of
> > right and wrong, something beyond "c'mon it's obvious!"?
>
> in their case the excuse was
> 1) they are a paying customer (thus can do no wrong)
> 2) they were breaking no chinese law (attacking US hosts)
And a moment's thought shows that attitude, while not very neighborly,
is an economically sound one - he maximizes his profit by doing nothing
about it. Actually taking action results in the costs of taking action
*plus* the possibility of losing that customer's revenue.
Unless you demonstrate that his total profit actually increases by
dealing with the miscreants, he has no reason to do so.
We've been down this road before - we've had our own problems on this
side of the puddle with transit providers who refused to deal with problem
customers because the provider billed by the packet, and the customers were
good about paying their bill - so dealing with the problem caused less packets
and thus less revenue.
(The real problem here is, of course, that the *cost* of the abuse is an
externality born by somebody other than the provider who's enabling the
bad behavior...
--==_Exmh_1428093671_2034P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=4Izn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1428093671_2034P--
