[orochimaaru]

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]

> 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]

> 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]

It 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]

This was announced last year.

[icehawk]

This 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]

Go look at the wayback for the exact page the OP is linking to.