North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: shuts down entire data center?

  • From: Michael Loftis
  • Date: Tue Jan 17 12:56:40 2006

--On January 17, 2006 7:27:20 AM -0500 "Robert E.Seastrom" <[email protected]> wrote:

Now that Go Daddy has ensured that I'll never do business with them
(which is a shame; I liked certain lawsuits that they brought in the
past, but if being their customer means subscribing to their thought
police, count me out), I think it's time to carefully go over the
registration agreements with the registrars I use...  never know when
someone will slip in something truly odious, and the argument that
none of them would be so crazy as to try it appears to be incorrect.
This thread gets less and less operational....however...I'm trying to keep this in scope...I think this relates operationally because we all have and enforce AUPs and ToS on our customer bases, both internal, and external. We also have AUPs and ToS enforced on us, by business relationships and peerings, etc.

Most ToS and AUP out there at the consumer level state basically the service is worthless, that we can and will d/c you at will, without cause, at our whim. Overzealous lawyering has made this a necessity. How much any of these might or might not stand up in court, I have no clue. As you get into the business world some ToS and AUP become more weighty, but far more structured. Giving both sides clearer and well defined policies and practices for responding to issues. Requiring notification, escalation, etc.

I think what matters is the way that the AUPs are applied. This case...the facts...don't match up. (not an authoritative source mind you, but a datapoint) only sees ~150 hosts by this ISP. From what I understand this number is from whois data with nameservers pointing to theirs. Contrast this with,,,, (ok so this ones not that much more, at ~800), even has more domains listed. Those last two aren't even 'in the business' and they have more.

While they may have a large datacenter, I'm not even remotely sure that this incident darkened the whole thing. It might've taken rDNS offline, but that's far from darkening a whole datacenter. It sounds like another WHTer puffing themselves up to being bigger than they are. They *must* be small to let a *CUSTOMER* advocate for them to a third party! Nectartech clearly knew about this and sanctioned it, and the person recording the phone calls has pointed this out more than once.

There are no facts in this case either way, because it is really Go Daddy against Nectartech. And Nectartech has a lot more reason to lie to make itself look better in front of its customers. If their whole datacenter went dark then it's some unrelated thing, or some really bad practice (such as somehow establishing iBGP based on domain names maybe? hell I dunno).

I've seen so much utter BS spouted by a lot of the self proclaimed web hosts on WHT that I'm not inclined to believe his side of the story any more (or any less) because of it. Go Daddy has to my knowledge never been draconian in applying their AUP (I think atleast some of us here would know about it if so).