4 ms·
They should have provided more notice. Your case is simply prioritizing work that you would have wanted to complete anyway. As a paying customer you could check
by orochimaaru 2y ago
They should have provided more notice. Your case is simply prioritizing work that you would have wanted to complete anyway. As a paying customer you could check if your unauthenticated requests can go via specific outbound IP addresses that they can then whitelist? I’m not sure but they may be inclined to provide exceptions for paying customers - hopefully.
- rjst01 2y ago> Your case is simply prioritizing work that you would have wanted to complete anyway It's busy-work that provides no business benefit, but-for our supplier's problems. > specific outbound IP addresses that they can then whitelist And then we have an on-going burden of making sure the list is kept up to date. Too risky, IMO.
- troutwine 2y ago> It's busy-work that provides no business benefit, but-for our supplier's problems. I dunno, if I were paying for a particular quality-of-service I'd want my requests authenticated so I can make claims if that QoS is breached. Relying on public pulls negates that. Making sure you can hold your suppliers to contract terms is basic due diligence.
- rjst01 2y agoIt is a trade-off. For many services I would absolutely agree with you, but for hosting public open-source binaries, well, that really should just work, and there's value in keeping our infrastructure simpler.
- cpuguy83 2y agoThis was announced last year.
- icehawk 2y agoThis sounds like its only talking about authenticated pulls: > We’re introducing image pull and storage limits for Docker Hub. This will impact less than 3% of accounts, the highest commercial consumers. For many of our Docker Team and Docker Business customers with Service Accounts, the new higher image pull limits will eliminate previously incurred fees.
- cpuguy83 2y agoGo look at the wayback for the exact page the OP is linking to.