[61534] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Fri Aug 29 17:15:09 2003
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "JC Dill" <nanog@vo.cnchost.com>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:12:19 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.10.0.20030829085800.04fcb3e0@127.0.0.1>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based
> > > eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for
> > > unwanted bandwidth across your network..
> > The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you
> > use', not what
> > somebody else uses. 'My' traffic is the traffic I want, not the
> > traffic you
> > try to give me that I don't want.
> An Internet-connected line is like an 800 phone line. You get connected,
> you "advertise" your presence, you have no control over who
> calls, you pay
> the bill for the incoming calls. That's just *how it is*.
>
> jc
The last time I went looking for more bandwidth from a new provider (5
months ago or so), I talked to five major providers. I told each one that we
would not pay for attack traffic after we notified them of the problem but
were willing to pay a reasonable 'per-incident' fee (say $500). Not one of
these providers had any problem with that. So it's not "how it is".
DS
