wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

Joakim Aronius joakim at
Fri Dec 3 02:35:05 CST 2010

* Jack Bates (jbates at wrote:
> Given "These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the
> stability of the infrastructure, which enables access
> to almost 500,000 other websites." I'd say they had DOS issues with
> their nameservers. They can't be expected to let their other domains
> go down in efforts to protect a single domain.

This is then important information that should be spelled out in their terms of service. 'If your domain generate to much traffic we will terminate your service'.. It might very well be reasonable for a free service to have these restrictions but as a customer it could be an important differentiator when choosing service provider.

..assuming that the DOS actually took place.. (tinfoil hat on..:)


> I'm guessing they weathered the problem somewhat, as they actually
> gave 24h notice. However, excessive loads and constant monitoring
> and protective measures on a free service would definitely be
> something a company would want to stop.
> Jack

More information about the NANOG mailing list