Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

Search engines are the ones that are paying for this redirection. Most of the companies that approached us about this technology partner with Yahoo for their error monetization. They want the eyeballs that come from redirecting these mistyped URIs. -Bradford Chatterjee On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:10

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:53:50PM -0600, Brielle wrote: > Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a > certain repressive regime already do this tactic with facebook or some > other major site? Yes, there's plenty of rogue CAs. That's an easier problem to solve (though

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Bino Gopal wrote: > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html It is more than slightly misleading to say "hijacking search queries"; paxfire is evil as it hijacks dns and breaks NXDOMAIN and the

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Bino Gopal wrote: > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html > I hope more ISPs start doing this; it'll increase the take up of HTTPS.

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On 8/5/2011 8:53 PM, Brielle wrote: > Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a certain > repressive regime already do this tactic with facebook or some other major > site? > Marketscore did (via installing root certs in the victim's machines), and as far as I know, st

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

In message <4e3c9228.4050...@paulgraydon.co.uk>, Paul Graydon writes: > On 08/05/2011 02:53 PM, Brielle wrote: > > Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a certai > n repressive regime already do this tactic with facebook or some other major > site? > > > Syria did: >

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On 08/05/2011 02:53 PM, Brielle wrote: Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a certain repressive regime already do this tactic with facebook or some other major site? Syria did: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/syrian-man-middle-against-facebook

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:04:51 PDT, Bino Gopal said: > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html > > Thoughts? You're new here, aren't you? ;) Anybody who was around when a certain DNS provider started providing a wildcard for *.com and *.

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a certain repressive regime already do this tactic with facebook or some other major site? -- Brielle (sent from my iPhone) On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Bino Gop

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

Not surprising.. Ten years ago a vender pitched inserting referral cookies when customers visted shopping sites. We ultimately convinced management that collecting comissions in this manner wasn't the best of ideas. On Aug 5, 2011 7:05 PM, "Bino Gopal" wrote:

Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Bino Gopal wrote: > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html I hope more ISPs start doing this; it'll increase the take up of HTTPS. - Matt -- Part[s] of .us are the global benchmark for pump

US internet providers hijacking users' search queries

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html Thoughts?

RE: IPv6 end user addressing

Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, but most ISPs seem to be zeroing in on a /56 for production. Though some ISPs are using /64 for their trials. Frank -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:21 PM To: Brian Mengel Cc: n

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Aug 5 21:12:16 2011 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 28-Jul-11 -to- 04-Aug-11 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS45899 90492 5.6% 323.2 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp 2 - AS982959250 3.7%

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On 08/05/2011 09:17, Brian Mengel wrote: > In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little > agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end > users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being > slightly preferred. > > I am most curious as

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

RE: FTTH CPE landscape

> -Original Message- > From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:47 PM > To: NANOG > Subject: Re: FTTH CPE landscape > > - Original Message - > > From: "Owen DeLong" > > > > It differs from a bridge in that *it requires a chunk of routable IP

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Owen DeLong" > >>> It differs from a bridge in that *it requires a chunk of routable IP space >>> to put behind it*, and a route to go there. For the specific situation >>> I posited, a consumer connection

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:56:25 MDT, Brielle Bruns said: > On 8/5/11 10:38 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > and I don't think*anybody* is big > > enough to actually burn through a /24 allocation (feel free to prove me > > wrong.. > > ;) > > Never doubt the ability of certain Asian countries t

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

- Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > > It differs from a bridge in that *it requires a chunk of routable IP space > > to put behind it*, and a route to go there. For the specific situation > > I posited, a consumer connection, you can get a static IP, but you *will > > not* get ro

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

I was speaking from the service provider perspective. If I deploy CPE to a customer, I want it to be a router, not a bridge. Owen Why? What is/are the technical or marketing reason(s) that make you want to deploy routers over bridges knowing that they are more expensive? For what kinds

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Brian Mengel wrote: > >> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little >> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end >> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates,

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

/56 is definitely preferable to /64, but, /48 really is a better choice. /56 is very limiting for autonomous hierarchical deployments. It's not about number of subnets. It's about the ability to provide some flexibility in the breadth and depth of bit fields used for creating hierarchical topolo

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > >> You say waste, I say perfectly valid use. > > Its waste to carve out of that many subnets without a good reason (and no the > reason presented so far are NOT compelling, IPSEC works perfectly over a > bridged interface). >> >>> If you're de

Re: RoadRunner contact?

I too would like to have words with this individual... W.E. On 08/05/2011 12:13 PM, James Snow wrote: Pardon the noise. Would greatly appreciate it if someone from RoadRunner could contact me off-list. It's regarding one of the RBL's you use. Thanks, -Snow

RoadRunner contact?

Pardon the noise. Would greatly appreciate it if someone from RoadRunner could contact me off-list. It's regarding one of the RBL's you use. Thanks, -Snow

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Owen DeLong" > > >> A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is >> a router >> which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In other >> words, >> it forwards packet

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On 8/5/11 10:38 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: and I don't think*anybody* is big enough to actually burn through a /24 allocation (feel free to prove me wrong.. ;) Never doubt the ability of certain Asian countries to burn through IP space at blistering speed when their citizens can't eve

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:17:48 EDT, Brian Mengel said: > In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little > agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end > users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being > slightly preferred. > > I am most

Re: IPv6 end user addressing

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Brian Mengel wrote: In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being slightly preferred. Not slightly preferred, very m

IPv6 end user addressing

In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being slightly preferred. I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying to

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

There continue to be many legitimate reasons why a consumer might not want NAT on their connection. I wouldn't' consider IPSEC the primary one, as even having one side under NAT is generally not an issue in most cases if it's the initiator (further skewing your netflow statistics to even less than

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

- Original Message - > From: "Scott Helms" > Again, you're not in any way shape or form representative. IPSEC IS > less than 1% for residential Internet customers in the US and its not > even 30% for business accounts. I have visibility into access networks > around North America which gi

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

On 8/4/2011 8:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Among the people I know, on the order of 35%. Not a majority, but, I would not call 1/3rd less than 1%. Again, you're not in any way shape or form representative. IPSEC IS less than 1% for residential Internet customers in the US and its not even 30% f

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

You say waste, I say perfectly valid use. Its waste to carve out of that many subnets without a good reason (and no the reason presented so far are NOT compelling, IPSEC works perfectly over a bridged interface). If you're dealing with business customers, then your usage versus wasted rat

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

- Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is > a router > which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In other > words, > it forwards packets and it doesn't do any other arbitrary things to > them at th

RE: FTTH CPE landscape

You don't have to use bridge mode for this (and the Actiontec router VZ supplies with FiOS is capable of doing bridge mode, but unless you jump through some fairly esoteric hoops, doing so breaks the guide and VOD, trust me on this...oh and you have to jump through them every time you reset the

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Aug 5, 2011, at 4:59 AM, Tom Hill wrote: > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 01:23 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is >> a router which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In >>

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 01:23 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > A transparent router (sorry, poor choice of terminology on my part) is > a router which doesn't NAT or become selectively opaque (firewall). In > other words, it forwards packets and it doesn't do any other arbitrary > things to them at the wh

Re: FTTH CPE landscape

On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:38 PM, wrote: > On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:30:35 PDT, Owen DeLong said: >> On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall >>> >>> Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who >>> want to put our own routers o