(no subject)

[beermat]

who moved microsoft?

"C:\Program Files\KB824146Scan>ping www.microsoft.com

Pinging a562.cd.akamai.net [213.161.66.154] with 32 bytes of data:"

!

Comments

[fluffydave.livejournal.com]

Microsoft don't respond to pings, because people seem to think its funny to ping them lots :)~ Wonder why that is!

[beermat]

I was concerned that the DNS didn't resolve to a microsoft one.

[fluffydave.livejournal.com]

wierd, I didn't see the ping response when I commented!

[etriganuk.livejournal.com]

It was front-ended by Akamai in the run-up to the Blaster worm. They needed the distributed nature of Akamai to cover the potential DoS vector.

[beermat]

thanks, I can stop worrying about that then :)

[poggs.livejournal.com]

Akami are on to a real winner - their technology rocks.

[hazeii.livejournal.com]

MS first used Akamai when they dropped off the net for a couple of days, because they screwed up their name servers. Since then Akamai seem to carrying more and more of their traffic, and apparently a lot of MS web servers are mistakenly taken to be running Apache/Linux because the client is actually talking to an Akamai server rathern than a Microsoft one.

At least MS realise they need professional help. Next up, though, they'll start boasting about the reliability of their web infrastructure....

[spodlife]

If MS can't make IIS reliable (Akamai use Linux) then they really should not be selling it, the cheeky monkeys.

[etriganuk.livejournal.com]

It's bugger all to do with reliability. It's two answers to the same problem.

1. If you're being constantly hit with DDoS, why not distribute the service?
2. Given the choice between building a massively dispersed infrastructure from scratch and the huge cost and time this entails to get right, when you have a company you can rent the infrastructure off, why not just do it?

Makes perfect business sense to me. And at the end of the day, MS is a business.