NoVA_CoxUser
Stand back from the cage -- The RF bites
Premium
join:2004-07-06
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
4 edits | reply to bmn
Re: Gulf Coast test info
said by bmn  : ... Much to the dismay of the technical community, ISPs are starting to abandon the old ways - we just move bits. It is sad really ... I would guess that is likely the vision and strategic direction from "the top."
After all, the President of Cox Communications didn't come-up through the "technical side" of the business ... but rather appears to have been a hot-running ad-man.
I don't mean to generalize that a "businessman" is either better or worse than an "engineer" when it comes to running running a telecommunications business ...
... only that they often have differing perspectives. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | reply to bmn
Ads are blocked here. As they don't do a thing to me. I run ad filtering software on all of the machines. Again, another thing I would like to see ran on a network level but hey, it works.
-Rob |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to MrBentor
said by MrBentor :If there ads inserted in to pages I own and were served up to requesters, that would give me right to sue. No third party has a right to change my content. It goes the requester as they requested it. If you go over to the former Bellsouth forum, there are people who would argue that it is their right to do that (insert ads) and that you can't complain since you agree to it when you sign up.
Much to the dismay of the technical community, ISPs are starting to abandon the old ways - we just move bits. It is sad really... It was more of an ethical stance than anything. Looks like ethics have left the business world.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| reply to NoVA_CoxUser
said by NoVA_CoxUser :said by MrBentor : ... What's next - advertisements inserted inline with inbound email? ... C'mon now, you need to embrace the "new lingo" ... ... they'd be called e-mail experience enhancements (a.k.a. Triple-Es)!  That part of the outsourcing program to DoubleClick, I mean, Google?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
NoVA_CoxUser
Stand back from the cage -- The RF bites
Premium
join:2004-07-06
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
3 edits | reply to MrBentor
said by MrBentor : ... What's next - advertisements inserted inline with inbound email? ... C'mon now, you need to embrace the "new lingo" ...
... they'd be called e-mail experience enhancements (a.k.a. Triple-Es)! |
|
MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
·Comcast
| reply to blee87
If there ads inserted in to pages I own and were served up to requesters, that would give me right to sue. No third party has a right to change my content. It goes the requester as they requested it.
This has happened before - remember the spyware companies who would replace or cover the ads and content of webpages served to infected computers?
What's next - advertisements inserted inline with inbound email? |
|
NoVA_CoxUser
Stand back from the cage -- The RF bites
Premium
join:2004-07-06
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
4 edits | reply to BillRoland
said by BillRoland : ... Being an ISP/MSO costs a of money? Not my problem, get the smart guys and work sessions figuring out ways to reduce deployment and maintenance costs ... Well said!
Cox might possibly start by "working smarter" at CSR Level I troubleshooting and not requiring a truck roll for EVERY issue called-in.
"Intelligently escalating" and tracking reported issues could also reduce unnecessary follow-on truck rolls while reducing the volume of customer call-backs checking on the "status" of repair.
At least Cox does get credit for not moving their Level-I CSRs off-shore! 
I guess I've drifted off-topic enough ... back to RFC-compliant Domain Name Services. |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| reply to NoVA_CoxUser
said by NoVA_CoxUser :In the past, most SciFi writers always presumed that it would be "The Government" who could become the the "Big Brother" It would appear that MSOs are now positioned to be the more immediate threat. Its purely academic at this point but its a sure bet "The Government" would not mind getting its hands on the data, either.
There has to be a breaking point somewhere. I am paying a premium for services and I don't want any freakin' ads rammed down my throat. Being an ISP/MSO costs a of money? Not my problem, get the smart guys and work sessions figuring out ways to reduce deployment and maintenance costs. Its getting to the point where ISP's are as bad as Burdines (now Macy's) about putting the crap racks out in the middle of the aisle so you have to stumble around them everywhere you go.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | reply to NoVA_CoxUser
It's going to get worse when America joins the north american union in 2008. Read the book 1984. That's what we are coming too.
-Rob |
|
NoVA_CoxUser
Stand back from the cage -- The RF bites
Premium
join:2004-07-06
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
4 edits | reply to blee87
That NebuAd site certainly is disturbing.
In the past, most SciFi writers always presumed that it would be "The Government" who could become the the "Big Brother"
It would appear that MSOs are now positioned to be the more immediate threat.
They track how we use the internet, what TV shows we watch, and who we call on the phone -- or at least they have the capability to do so.
Im sure it's only a matter of time before "targeted" CATV ads are inserted based on your internet interests.
Who here remembers Max Headroom?
|
|
blee87
@cox.net
| reply to coxengr
heres whats next:
ISPs Inserting Ads Into Your Pages: »yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/06/23/1233212.shtml
read the post about man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL pages:/
I have no hope left for "the web" |
|
a89643
@cox.net
| reply to state
said by state :Relying on a someone else's DNS server to resolve your private address space probably isn't a really good idea. I think there may be an RFC that addresses that, will look in the morning. I'd recommend adding entries to your hosts file or in your firewall/router if it supports it. well thats the thing..... windows was broken first.. so who is to blame? in an ideal world your queries wouldnt leak out onto the net but they do. and there will be people who will have trouble with this, mostly home users because they cannot afford windows server to setup proper DNS etc. or know any better.
also I apologize for my earlier harsh comments... im in a tissy |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to state
said by state :Relying on a someone else's DNS server to resolve your private address space probably isn't a really good idea. I think there may be an RFC that addresses that, will look in the morning. I'd recommend adding entries to your hosts file or in your firewall/router if it supports it. I'm beginning to get a bit frustrated, as I'm apparently unable to explain the workings of the Windows resolver to you.
Cox's DNS server is not doing the resolving, it is properly returning NXDOMAIN for a non-existent hostname. Windows is then kind enough to look for that name on the network. If I had a WINS server, it would do that. Since I don't, it falls back to broadcast name resolution, which works fine for my four machine network.
Say I have a machine called amethyst.nwacg.net that does not have a static IP address and is not in the DNS zone for nwacg.net. Any Windows program using the built-in resolver (or any Linux machine that has its NSS configured to hand off name resolution to Samba if the DNS, NIS, and other lookups fail) will be able to correctly resolve that hostname on the local network, because DNS correctly returns NXDOMAIN, causing the resolver to attempt to resolve the address using a WINS server or broadcast name resolution.
If the broken, non RFC compliant DNS server returns an IP address for a non existent host, the resolver returns the incorrect address, rather than falling back to other forms of name resolution, as appropriate.
Again, no outside DNS servers are resolving names on my local network, they are correctly not resolving names on my local network. Cox's misguided "test," causes their servers to incorrectly resolve names on my local network.
FWIW, Windows does this because Windows has long been capable of supporting SMB names in DNS, by design, along with WINS and broadcast name resolution. Cox breaks not only HTTP, but SMB and many other protocols with their idiocy.
I don't know what's so difficult to understand... |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs:
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo :Read my previous post, in which I stated that the windows name resolution stack will first attempt to resolve a name using DNS, then if that fails, it will use NMB to attempt to resolve the name on the local network. Since Cox's nameserver returns an A record for any invalid name, it never gets to the point of using NMB to resolve the name. Relying on a someone else's DNS server to resolve your private address space probably isn't a really good idea. I think there may be an RFC that addresses that, will look in the morning. I'd recommend adding entries to your hosts file or in your firewall/router if it supports it. |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs:
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| reply to a89643
said by a89643 :
so its ok because no one uses any of that stuff right? you don't have other machines you refer to as just "hostname" I'm not advocating the changes that have been made by any stretch of the imagination, so no, it's not "ok".
I have plenty of machines that I address by hostname and not FQDN both on my local network and via VPN. When I establish a VPN connection I'm assigned an IP address, DNS servers and WINS servers from the network I'm connecting to...so no matter what Cox does it won't impact that connection. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to state
said by state :I'm talking about connections across the WAN, nothing has changed there with regards to netbios. What negative impacts are you expecting to see on your local network because of changes to their internet facing DNS servers? Read my previous post, in which I stated that the windows name resolution stack will first attempt to resolve a name using DNS, then if that fails, it will use NMB to attempt to resolve the name on the local network. Since Cox's nameserver returns an A record for any invalid name, it never gets to the point of using NMB to resolve the name. |
|
a89643
@cox.net
| reply to state
said by state :Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios. this is VPN, and internal network stuff(not internet bound traffic) that if you don't have fqdn's setup for your stuff(and a DNS server), you're screwed. or you address everything by ip address(fun), or add everything to everyones hosts file.. (fun if your behind a router that assigns dynamic IPs)
so its ok because no one uses any of that stuff right? you don't have other machines you refer to as just "hostname"
have these workarounds handy because tech support is going to see a lot of calls about this. No they wont? because you're just using www and email like a good SHEEP right? »support.microsoft.com/kb/172218 |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs: | reply to wierdo
I'm talking about connections across the WAN, nothing has changed there with regards to netbios. What negative impacts are you expecting to see on your local network because of changes to their internet facing DNS servers? |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to state
said by state :Netbios is only for native windows applications (such as file shares, network neighborhood, etc). It's been blocked inbound and outbound for some time now. Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios. Um, yes they do. At least in Windows XP, the DNS stack will first try to do a DNS lookup on a host, then if it doesn't find it there, it will fall back to NMB resolution on the local network. I wasn't talking about sshing (or httping for that matter) to some machine on a different network, I was talking about their misadventure breaking things on my LAN. |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs:
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| reply to wierdo
Netbios is only for native windows applications (such as file shares, network neighborhood, etc). It's been blocked inbound and outbound for some time now.
Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios. |
|
