# Limestone Networks now offering Enterprise DDoS Protection $25/mo



## Jack (Aug 12, 2013)

Limestone Networks is now offering Enterprise DDoS protection, priced at $25/m* per IP, while basic protection is free.

*$30/mo for TCP only IP

Offers on servers:







Code: GWCCAUG13A - Intel Core2Quad Q9300 (2.5GHz/core). Starting at $76.50!*

Code: GWCCAUG13B - Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/core). Starting at $79.90!*

Code: GWCCAUG13C - Intel Core2Quad Q9650 (3.0GHz/core). Starting at $83.30!*


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

Says over here:

http://www.limestonenetworks.com/datacenter/ddos_protection.html



> Enterprise DDoS Protection - $50/mo per IP
> 
> We offer a monthly DDoS protection service for $50 per IP Address that uniquely offers three layers of detection and protection. The service is available to all of our dedicated server and cloud clients. It will protect you from an attack up to 10Gbps and 6 million packets per second. To sign up, simply speak to an Account Specialist or upgrade directly through the Security Center in OnePortal.


Scant little on details, big on PR/marketing hype.

Good to have options though.


----------



## Jack (Aug 12, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> Says over here:
> 
> http://www.limestonenetworks.com/datacenter/ddos_protection.html
> 
> ...


It's at $25/mo as per my screenshots above.


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

6M pps sounds like they're reselling blacklotus?

Francisco


----------



## Jack (Aug 12, 2013)

Francisco said:


> 6M pps sounds like they're reselling blacklotus?
> 
> 
> Francisco


Nope

Jack$ traceroute 192.169.80.*

traceroute to 192.169.80.* (192.169.80.*), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

 1  dsldevice (192.168.1.254)  56.276 ms  94.796 ms  99.980 ms

 2  lo0-central10.pcl-ag01.plus.net (195.166.128.182)  26.521 ms  34.218 ms  23.301 ms

 3  link-b-central10.pcl-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.162)  63.220 ms  21.963 ms  21.657 ms

 4  194.core.access.plus.net (212.159.0.194)  21.297 ms  22.858 ms  21.554 ms

 5  ae1.ptw-cr02.plus.net (195.166.129.2)  21.623 ms  28.794 ms  22.742 ms

 6  ae1.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.0)  21.895 ms  21.909 ms  21.642 ms

 7  tenge9-2.br02.lax05.pccwbtn.net (63.218.72.142)  165.680 ms * *

 8  tenge9-2.br02.lax05.pccwbtn.net (63.218.72.142)  164.852 ms

    63-218-212-22.static.pccwglobal.net (63.218.212.22)  221.176 ms

    tenge9-2.br02.lax05.pccwbtn.net (63.218.72.142)  163.397 ms

 9  63-218-212-22.static.pccwglobal.net (63.218.212.22)  164.745 ms

    192.184.8.69 (192.184.8.69)  165.030 ms

    208.64.120.57 (208.64.120.57)  173.228 ms

10  199.59.161.194 (199.59.161.194)  382.882 ms

    208.64.120.57 (208.64.120.57)  170.020 ms

    199.59.161.194 (199.59.161.194)  440.015 ms

11  208.64.120.57 (208.64.120.57)  166.893 ms

    199.59.161.194 (199.59.161.194)  279.863 ms

    te5-1.bdr1.core2.dllstx3.dallas-idc.com (208.115.192.54)  259.001 ms

12  199.59.161.194 (199.59.161.194)  387.944 ms  431.974 ms

    ge0-1.vl166.cr01-81.dllstx3.dallas-idc.com (208.115.250.2)  367.008 ms

13  te5-1.bdr1.core1.dllstx3.dallas-idc.com (208.115.192.50)  166.082 ms

    te5-1.bdr1.core2.dllstx3.dallas-idc.com (208.115.192.54)  259.875 ms

    *-*-162-69.static.reverse.lstn.net (69.162.*.*)  256.208 ms

14  ge0-1.vl166.cr01-81.dllstx3.dallas-idc.com (208.115.250.2)  161.755 ms

    *-*-162-69.static.reverse.lstn.net (69.162.*.*)  251.568 ms

    192.169.80.* (192.169.80.*)  259.848 ms

Jack$


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

Jack said:


> Nope
> 
> Jack$ traceroute 192.169.80.*
> 
> ...


http://bgp.he.net/AS46475

Yep.

Francisco


----------



## Jack (Aug 12, 2013)

Francisco said:


> http://bgp.he.net/AS46475
> 
> 
> Yep.
> ...


Does BL have a Dallas POP?


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

Jack said:


> Does BL have a Dallas POP?


Nope, notice it hits LAX 

Francisco


----------



## concerto49 (Aug 12, 2013)

Reseller Black Lotus adds huge latency. Meh. Pretty easy to do too.


----------



## Jack (Aug 12, 2013)

12  199.59.161.194 (199.59.161.194)  387.944 ms  431.974 ms

#whois 199.59.161.194 | grep OrgName

OrgName:        Black Lotus Communications


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

Jack said:


> 12  199.59.161.194 (199.59.161.194)  387.944 ms  431.974 ms


 #whois 199.59.161.194 | grep OrgName

OrgName:        Black Lotus Communications

Yup. There's like 6 hops in that trace that are all BL.

Francisco


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

Well that sure is a pricey service with high bloated latency then.   Skip.


----------



## bzImage (Aug 12, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> Well that sure is a pricey service with high bloated latency then.   Skip.


And to think, some people I won't mention who are watching this thread complain about OUR pricing.


----------



## Jack (Aug 12, 2013)

bzImage said:


> And to think, some people I won't mention who are watching this thread complain about OUR pricing.


$3 so expensive...


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

$3-$6/mo for filtering and people complain?  Those trolls need to find a bridge to go hang out under.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Aug 12, 2013)

bz's more referring to the folks that have the audacity to get uppity about not getting a discount on already insanely-priced service   But aye, agreed.


----------



## MannDude (Aug 12, 2013)

BuyVM pricing is already cheap. I don't consider them in the same class as the general LE* provider, so I don't mind paying 'more' for 'less'. The service works, and when Vegas doesn't lose power it's stable.  Those who complain only do so because they're used to paying around $3.50/mo per GB of RAM as per LEB offers. You can also get cheaper, but I still feel like I should be paying more for the service.

Anyways, Limestone networks is using BlackLotus? Only experience with them was generally good, back when I worked for URPad we had a dedicated server with BL, had nice tools/features and the protection just worked. Expensive as shit though. Is Limestone's routing to BL all that bad? I mean, most places that do filtering is going to route traffic somewhere geographically different anyway, right? All I know is if you do a traceroute to vpsboard it stops in Seattle, even though the server is in Vegas. Not optimal routing but it works.


----------



## concerto49 (Aug 12, 2013)

MannDude said:


> BuyVM pricing is already cheap. I don't consider them in the same class as the general LE* provider, so I don't mind paying 'more' for 'less'. The service works, and when Vegas doesn't lose power it's stable.  Those who complain only do so because they're used to paying around $3.50/mo per GB of RAM as per LEB offers. You can also get cheaper, but I still feel like I should be paying more for the service.
> 
> 
> Anyways, Limestone networks is using BlackLotus? Only experience with them was generally good, back when I worked for URPad we had a dedicated server with BL, had nice tools/features and the protection just worked. Expensive as shit though. Is Limestone's routing to BL all that bad? I mean, most places that do filtering is going to route traffic somewhere geographically different anyway, right? All I know is if you do a traceroute to vpsboard it stops in Seattle, even though the server is in Vegas. Not optimal routing but it works.


BL is in LA so basically LA to Dallas. Not much point of being in Dallas then.


----------



## MannDude (Aug 12, 2013)

concerto49 said:


> BL is in LA so basically LA to Dallas. Not much point of being in Dallas then.


Dallas to LA is 1,436 miles.

Vegas to Seattle is 1,129 miles.

So comparatively speaking, not a ton of difference between the distance between Limestone and BlackLotus and BuyVM and CNServers.


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Dallas to LA is 1,436 miles.
> 
> Vegas to Seattle is 1,129 miles.
> 
> So comparatively speaking, not a ton of difference between the distance between Limestone and BlackLotus and BuyVM and CNServers.


CN is in Portland 

I think the point he's trying to make is that there's no advantage since it's backhauled from blacklotus. It isn't like they rolled out their own platform and it added a new player to the market.

Francisco


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

Damn DDoS services and the massive backhauling.

Unsure why the firms doing the actual filtering aren't expanding to other geographic markets.  Seems strange...


----------



## concerto49 (Aug 12, 2013)

Francisco said:


> CN is in Portland
> 
> 
> I think the point he's trying to make is that there's no advantage since it's backhauled from blacklotus. It isn't like they rolled out their own platform and it added a new player to the market.
> ...


Spot on. At least backhaul from somewhere closer.


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> Damn DDoS services and the massive backhauling.
> 
> Unsure why the firms doing the actual filtering aren't expanding to other geographic markets.  Seems strange...


I'm assuming bandwidth costs.

CNServers was originally heading to the east coast but they got jerked around by nlayer.

Francisco


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

CNServers I take it isn't big enough to be expanding to multiple markets.

My gripe and observation is an obvious one.   Far west coast filtering is good for.... little.  Pretty much US Pacific and maybe Mountain.  Beyond there, gets silly with latency.

Not a big option pool for protection services.   The low end is totally CNServers or none in the US.   Even the $8-$1k market is pretty slim pickings.


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> CNServers I take it isn't big enough to be expanding to multiple markets.
> 
> My gripe and observation is an obvious one.   Far west coast filtering is good for.... little.  Pretty much US Pacific and maybe Mountain.  Beyond there, gets silly with latency.
> 
> Not a big option pool for protection services.   The low end is totally CNServers or none in the US.   Even the $8-$1k market is pretty slim pickings.


CN has a decent setup but they got screwed on some bandwidth contracts with nlayer like I said.

Our NY location is going to cost 5x more than what we pay on the west coast.

Francisco


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

5X cost increase..... Well... it would be silly for me not to say, you have an installed base in Buffalo who knows of filtering in Vegas.... Bunch of those folks *should* be interested in filtering.

Have you pinged your Buffalo customer base yet?  I'd get a pre-reservation list going.

5X cost though is mighty big heap of bills for you.


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> 5X cost increase..... Well... it would be silly for me not to say, you have an installed base in Buffalo who knows of filtering in Vegas.... Bunch of those folks *should* be interested in filtering.
> 
> Have you pinged your Buffalo customer base yet?  I'd get a pre-reservation list going.
> 
> 5X cost though is mighty big heap of bills for you.


It's not a big deal.

Sure I'd love to break even the product within the first month but we fully expect to float it for a while.

We had a few users wanting large blocks but most of them were after deeper discounts.

Francisco


----------



## drmike (Aug 12, 2013)

Doh! BuyVM already discounts the hell out of things.   People are getting a little delusional don't you think  ?


----------



## Francisco (Aug 12, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> Doh! BuyVM already discounts the hell out of things.   People are getting a little delusional don't you think  ?


They were all wanting it to resell so they wanted some more meat on the bone is all.

Back on topic 

Francisco


----------



## Artie (Aug 12, 2013)

By the way, all those rates are 50% off until the end August. Then it will be $50 per IP.


----------

