4 ms·
Unless you have direct 1p knowledge Im very skeptical of framing that as a capability or capacity problem (“had to” “overwhelm” etc). Im very confident it was p
by donavanm 2y ago
Unless you have direct 1p knowledge Im very skeptical of framing that as a capability or capacity problem (“had to” “overwhelm” etc). Im very confident it was purely an effort vs benefit discussion. Which isnt too hard when the benefit is an intangible good will.
Ive worked for a very large CDN, and Ive both unilaterally removed a customers access and involved in even more awkward “inviting them to use another provider more suited to their use case” discussions with account managers, PMs, legal, etc. There are a multitude of unsurprising reasons those things happen, even for credible and legitimate paying customers. It was _never_ because we were “overwhelmed.” However attracting a high operational burden or cost burden would certainly play in to the _business decision_.
As a trivial example a transparently online gambling site with nominal jurisdiction somewhere difficult in asia may generate very legitimate traffic and even pay their $20 or $200 bill. But that revenue isnt worth the cost of scaling up our network edge all across the AP for unmetered junk bits directed at their distribution, burning goodwill with peers when _their_ network gets blown up, or driving more operational and security load as their gambling site competitors employ more novel and bigger attacks. Simply put not all business is worth it, and you dont have to accept all customers. Part on reasonable terms when possible and apply by relevant laws. Thats the actual obligation.
- bostik 2y agoWhile I don't have immediate first-person knowledge, the event and decisions were widely reported at the time. https://www.zdnet.com/article/krebs-on-security-booted-off-akamai-network-after-ddos-attack-proves-pricey/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/krebs-on-security-booted-off-a... -- note the quote, in particular https://www.theregister.com/2016/09/26/google_shields_krebs/ https://www.theregister.com/2016/09/26/google_shields_krebs/ -- "could no longer shield the site without impacting paying customers" Krebs's own post from the time does not reference the business decisions, only the technical aspects: https://web.archive.org/web/20160922124922/http://krebsonsecurity.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160922124922/http://krebsonsec...
- sim7c00 2y ago"without impacting paying customers"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- timcobb 2y agoThis all makes sense. But then since Google is not a benevolent entity either, why did Krebs make sense as a customer for Google and not for Akamai?
- tokioyoyo 2y agoVery good PR that will get shared in the groups like this one, where some of us are in decision making tables for purchasing such products?
- dylan604 2y agoEvery company I've worked for has certain clients/customers that the company would (for various reasons) be better off financially to no longer have those clients/customers. At some point, those internal conversations become much less awkward as every realizes the reality of the situation. Those companies that had to undergo bidding processes usually fixed the glitch at that time by making very noncompetitive bids.
- greentxt 2y agoEven worse in health insurance.