approval from:
DooD 
| reply to openbox9
Re: Bull$hit ! said by openbox9:So, Comcast aside, should we disallow proxy servers? Or are you simply saying that ISPs should be required to inform users of the "stuff" in the middle of their connections? For the most part, ISPs have given up on the use of caches mostly for the reason that they typically cause more problems than they can solve. CDNs have largely made them obsolete as well.
Proxies are simply caches, nothing more. They don't analyze, modify and spoof packets in a manner that breaks the network.
Additionally, to mention proxies in the context of this discussion is fallacious and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the difference between a proxy server and what is going on at Comcast.
The type of activity that Comcast is engaging in is far more dangerous. It is basically a man-in-the-middle attack. Forging source addresses and modify packet contents enroute is considered to be a pretty shitty thing to do in the networking admin/system admin community. |
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by factchecker :
Proxies are simply caches, nothing more. They don't analyze, modify and spoof packets in a manner that breaks the network. Caching is only one capability of a proxy. The whole point of a proxy is that it intercepts data streams, alters packets, and then forwards as itself.
Would you prefer to answer the question in regards to NAT...which has a potential to break a lot more applications than what Comcast is doing.
I'm not defending Comcast at all, I'm merely asking for clarification on your comment that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to intercept and alter packets. |
