AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1

Post by rbanffy » Thu, May 03, 2018, 11:45 AM UTC

xtf wrote: post #238

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.1.1.1#Criticism_and_problems : Technological websites noted that by using 1.1.1.1 as the IP address for their service, Cloudflare created problems with existing setups. While 1.1.1.1 was not a reserved IP address, it was and is used by many existing routers (mostly those sold by Cisco Systems) and companies for hosting login pages to private networks, exit pages or other purposes,…

Post by nasredin » Thu, May 03, 2018, 11:46 AM UTC

loeg wrote: post #86

bowersbros wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see anything about the 33.0.0.0/8 range being reserved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-add... It's allocated to "DLA Systems Automation Center," a branch of the US military. The addresses are probably used on NIPRNet/SIPRNet, but not publically routed. (Much like 22.0.0.0/8.)

Post by larkeith » Thu, May 03, 2018, 11:48 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #221

topranks wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US! In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet. In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.

>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right? I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.

Post by jamespo » Thu, May 03, 2018, 11:53 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #276

netsec_burn wrote: post #272

This isn't malice. AT&T has an internal IP they assigned to 1.1.1.1 because it was unused and they used it as an image caching proxy so it browsing the internet would feel faster on early phones. I've seen it when I was reverse engineering on Android a while back.

So it's not just malice but doubly so: they used an IP they didn't have the rights to and they're now blocking proper users of it.

Post by zentiggr » Thu, May 03, 2018, 11:59 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #194

bb88 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means. And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?

Except they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.