[61611] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What if it doesn't affect the ISP? (was Re: What do you want
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Aug 31 03:12:50 2003
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:02:05 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: bmanning@karoshi.com, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200308302008.h7UK8Ed09427@karoshi.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 1:08 PM -0700 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
>
>> Bits are bits, very few of them actually impact the ISP itself. Most
>
> Lies! all the bits that pass through the ISP impact
> the ISP. Generally in the fiscal arena. More bits == More cash.
>
Actually, there can be some debate to this point. Bits really don't cost
anything more until they fill a link and require the purchase of additional
bandwidth. Otherwise, generally, for ISPs, the finanancial impact of an
empty link is often more expensive than that of one full of bits.
(often, bits are billable. Idletime is almost never billable)
>> Or some major ISPs seem to have the practice of letting the infected
>> computers continuing attacking as long as it doesn't hurt their
>> network.
>
> Or for fiscal reasons...
>
> -- bill (being cynical in WDC)
Yep.
Owen
