On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic > > This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible > to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and going "lol, bill." > > If you want to start playing that game, I'm happy to pay more per mbit > of traffic if you're happy to guarantee me that you won't route me > traffic that I'm expressly uninterested in.
Would you be willing to pay for the traffic _not_ delivered to you because of customer-pushed ACLs? If so, that would take the argument away "because we filter we can't bill". Would you be willing to pay a premium to be able to do so? Is it worth a premium to insert ACLs in real time in the upstream's network or is a 2 hour delay acceptable? what about 5 minute delay? Aside from practical issues with flowspec as Ytti mentioned already, I don't think the market has yet figured out how stuff like this should work and become cost-effective. Kind regards, Job
