181–190 of 382 posts
This is going to reveal my lack of networking knowledge but how does a company get an IP like 1.1.1.1? A bucket load of cash?
Help from / collaboration with APNIC: https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter. Certainly that's the first step. There's options for the second step. But advertising seems like it would be the most powerful. "Why use us over AT&T? Because you're not getting the Internet. You're getting what AT&T decides you should look at." "We don't block Netflix or Hulu or a whole host of other streaming services, unlike…
Who's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?
And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.1.1.1 was working for me on AT&T after Cloudflare released 1.1.1.1, then shortly after that it ceased working. Maybe the firmware update has a bug, but it's very suspiciously timed. Notice that the OP is dated April 2, while 1.1.1.1 was released April 1.
I was using 1.1.1.1 with AT&T Fiber and it stopped working. I didn't really question it, I figured maybe something went down at Cloudflare so I just switched my Mac back to using the defaults again. It never even occurred to me that AT&T might be blocking it. Maybe stupid question, but why would AT&T block it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.1.1.1 was working for me on AT&T after Cloudflare released 1.1.1.1, then shortly after that it ceased working. Maybe the firmware update has a bug, but it's very suspiciously timed. Notice that the OP is dated April 2, while 1.1.1.1 was released April 1.
If they were so determined to block it, why would they do it in firmware and not upstream? I think people are reading too much into this.
I'd say there is a 98% chance this is a bug in some firmware and a 2% chance AT&T is intentionally trying to block Cloudflare DNS. I get why people are paranoid about ISPs blocking content and net neutrality, but let's not cry wolf prematurely. The technical details here strongly suggest a bug rather than intentional blocking of 1.1.1.1 DNS traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having it seem like a bug would be an effective way to block it intentionally. The timing of such an unusual regression is suspicious. The fact that 1.0.0.1 is also blocked is also suspicious.
> Having it seem like a bug would be an effective way to block it intentionally. Just like how only the true messiah denies his divinity, it doesn't give innocent bugs much of a chance. In fact, now we can show that all bugs are suspicious, with apologies to the interesting number paradox: The least intentional looking bug is the most effectively hidden, and therefore should probably be suspected of being intentional…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's that saying about not attributing to malice, what is more easily explained as stupidity or incompetence or whatever? (Occom's Razon and all that). AT&T routers also don't let you use a 10.x address at home (possibly to prepare for carrier grade NAT, although there is an official 100.x address reserved for that; so fuck you ATT). I'm so sick of my AT&T router/modem for various other reasons. I hate how you are…
> What's that saying about not attributing to malice, what is more easily explained as stupidity or incompetence or whatever? Hanlon's razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor