[52820] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: the cost of carrying routes]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Oct 17 13:18:25 2002
To: Ratul Mahajan <ratul@cs.washington.edu>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:47:12 PDT."
<20021017005843.Q23295-100000@krypton.cs.washington.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:17:33 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-1353825236P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:47:12 PDT, Ratul Mahajan said:
> ps: since i don't run networks myself, all of this may be something that is
> obviously asinine. would be great if someone was to point out if that is
> the case, and why.
Remember - in most cases, the management of a company *may* have moral or
ethical requirements "to be a good citizen", but they almost certainly have
legal requirements to "the bottom line". If a site is paying you for transit,
there's a very strong *dis*incentive to take any action that would prevent a
DDoS attack - the bottom line says the Right Thing is to install just enough
traffic shaping so a DDoS won't melt *your* net, and bill for the traffic. ;)
If anything, in that case you want to charge well-run sites MORE, to make up
for the revenue loss of them not being involved in a DDoS. ;)
The exact same logic applies to spammage, worms, and other malware - when
there's a bandwidth glut, and you're selling bandwidth, you *WANT* traffic.
I wonder how much revenue SirCam and Nimda generated....
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_-1353825236P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE9rvCtcC3lWbTT17ARAufSAKCNiFYoQa5hKTQarGnvdPkbVzJ95wCgrxgk
2urL46L3IQMHhDXyw9uHkcQ=
=dqdA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-1353825236P--
