301–310 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but they'd just call themselves a "networking communications service provider" or something, or call themselves nothing, and people will still just use them.
You can call yourself whatever you want, but these are the regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A possible explanation is that the traffic from active use of 1.1.1.1 caused some backend service to get overloaded with traffic due to a faulty assumption that the address would never be used by customers. Anyone keep traceroutes while before the patch to see if there were errant stops or delays? They had the choice of "fix the whole backend" or "block 1.x on the user end". Guess we know which one was easier. If all…
1.1.1.1 is well known (based on the announcement from cloudflare anyway) to have tons of random traffic. That's part of the reason it wasn't implemented by others as a valid address for anything. Could the fact that they're simply allowing traffic at that address cause additional stress on AT&T's network? I ask because I don't know. I figure any traffic headed that direction would go anyway it just wouldn't get route…
Here is the original Cloudflare post on what 1.1.1.1 is [1]. For those who don't know, 1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's privacy focused DNS service. That means that when you type in www.google.com, that URL can be sent to 1.1.1.1, and then 1.1.1.1 resolves that URL an IP address and send the IP back to the user. All user requests are then sent to the IP address, not the URL. Supposedly this is better than using the DNS server…
Got a link to the original hacker news article by chance? I’d like to see the comments
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.
Good. If cloud fare is allowed to block sites from their hosting service based on opinions, then att should be allowed to do the same. Also fuck cloud fare for choosing 1.1.1.1 when any network engineer worth his salt would have told them it's going to cause problems. There are things like conventions and traditions, you break them at your own peril.
>We talked to the APNIC team about how we wanted to create a privacy-first, extremely fast DNS system. They thought it was a laudable goal. We offered Cloudflare's network to receive and study the garbage traffic in exchange for being able to offer a DNS resolver on the memorable IPs. And, with that, 1.1.1.1 was born.[0]
[0]https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/
It's not a reserved address like 192.168.0.0/16 or 10.0.0.0/8[1][2], nor is it one of the other reserved addresses for documentation or testing. So I think people using it before as test or LAN addresses are actually in the wrong here. This kind of "tradition" in networking is wrong. That's what things like RFC's are for.
[1]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735
[2]https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/...
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,…
What kind of demented person uses 1.1.1.1, a routable public address since 2010, for internal addresses. What's wrong with 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168/16?
File FCC complaints! This sorry if thing will definitely get a response.
No it won't. The FCC doesn't work for the the citizenry anymore, just for lobbyists.
The abortive never-implemented two-year dalliance with Title II doesn't count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think ISPs would be welcoming to that change. They'd market as "WWW-Providers" or "Social media providers" and most people would be happy. They'd also become unreliable and untrustworthy. "Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have _good_ Internet"
"Mom, I'm going over to Timmy's house tonight. They have more internet, not just Facebook!"
(Meanwhile this whole exchange is probably already obsolete because who visits their people's houses when you have phones?)
I'm going to ask for a partial refund every month if they are blocking parts of the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this not illegal?
Because as it stands right now, AT&T sells you access to their network. What happens on their network is for AT&T to decide. With the FCC striking down net neutrality [1], AT&T is probably testing out the waters. [1] According to google, it's defined as: "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking partic…