File FCC complaints! This sorry if thing will definitely get a response.
AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
51–60 of 382 posts
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#52I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.
The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.
I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.
I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.
A court might.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think they'll block 8.8.8.8 if the anger for blocking 1.1.1.1 isn't too loud. On what basis? Google started Google Public DNS in 2009 and, as far as I know, it was never intentionally blocked by any ISPs. The issue with 1.1.1.1 is a lot of hardware treats it as though it was reserved for private networks. For instance, I can't access 1.1.1.1 right now since I'm connected to a Cisco router. So this could very well…
> I can't access 1.1.1.1 right now since I'm connected to a Cisco router. I've never seen or heard of a Cisco router doing anything that would interfere with access to 1.1.1.1. Their wireless LAN controllers on the other hand, use 1.1.1.1 as the default (but entirely configurable) Virtual IP to use as an anchor for the captive portal. If you can't access 1.1.1.1 behind a Cisco router it's likely because someone set i…
> I've never seen or heard of a Cisco router doing anything that would interfere with access to 1.1.1.1.
I have news for you...
"After very little research we quickly came across Cisco mis-using 1.1.1.1, a quick search for “cisco 1.1.1.1” brought up numerous articles where Cisco are squatting on 1.1.1.1 for their Wireless LAN Controllers (WLC). It’s unclear if Cisco officially regards 1.0.0.0/8 as bogon space, but there are lots of examples that can be found on their community websites giving example bogon lists that include the /8. It mostly seems to be used for captive portal when authenticating to the wireless access point, often found in hotels, cafés and other public WiFi hotspot locations."
from: https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-reachability-to-1-1-1-1-g...
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#55I wonder if anyone has considered some sort of legislation whereby internet service providers are not allowed to block or disrupt service to certain parts of the internet in order to promote their own business model.
Maybe something about being neutral on the internet.
Net neutrality started disappearing long before it was even called "net neutrality" --- a lot of residential ISPs won't even let others send packets to the full 64K port range of TCP/UDP to the IP it gives you, blocking some of them for "security reasons", throttling/cutting off certain protocols like BitTorrent, censoring "malicious" sites, etc. If we want true Internet connections we're going to have to fight a lot harder...
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#56I'm wondering what CloudFlare response will be to this.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.
A court might.
but they'd just call themselves a "networking communications service provider" or something, or call themselves nothing, and people will still just use them.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't access 1.1.1.1 right now since I'm connected to a Cisco router. I've never seen or heard of a Cisco router doing anything that would interfere with access to 1.1.1.1. Their wireless LAN controllers on the other hand, use 1.1.1.1 as the default (but entirely configurable) Virtual IP to use as an anchor for the captive portal. If you can't access 1.1.1.1 behind a Cisco router it's likely because someone set i…
> I've never seen or heard of a Cisco router doing anything that would interfere with access to 1.1.1.1. I have news for you... "After very little research we quickly came across Cisco mis-using 1.1.1.1, a quick search for “cisco 1.1.1.1” brought up numerous articles where Cisco are squatting on 1.1.1.1 for their Wireless LAN Controllers (WLC). It’s unclear if Cisco officially regards 1.0.0.0/8 as bogon space, but th…
As I already mentioned, their wireless LAN controller uses it as a configurable default. The Cisco Wireless LAN controller is not a Cisco "router".
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they blocking 8.8.8.8? Why do you think they're blocking 1.1.1.1?
They were blocking 1.1.1.1 on some firmwares long before cloudflare's dns service started. From what I've read, the routers use it on some internal interface. It's likely incompetence, not malice. If they didn't want people using other DNS, and were willing to fuck with ip addresses they don't own to accomplish that, they'd be blackholing google's and opendns's public caching nameservers too. It might even have been…
I like to use 33.0.0.0/8 for that stuff since I don't believe any of those IPs are available on the open internet.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument I've made is that if they're blocking certain parts of the internet, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an Internet Service Provider.
I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.
Nothing stopping any of us from filing a class action suit against such "internet" service providers.