 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | More money! ISPs shouldn't be too upset by this. Since the addition of caps and overages seems to be the in thing these days, it just means they'll get more money from customers whose machines have been hijacked and zombified. . .
Add throttling to that and you've got an instant and nice steady additional overage income without saturating the backbone.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
|
|
 rawwhidePremium
join:2000-09-03
The Sticks
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Yep. Eventually ISP's will start to lose customers because they cant afford the overage fees from being zombified.. 
--
TinFoilers UFO Union of America!!
TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101... |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to fireflier
ISPs don't get overage revenue from attacks coming from "out there" (meaning the internet at large). At least try to stay on topic. |
|
| said by jester121:ISPs don't get overage revenue from attacks coming from "out there" (meaning the internet at large). Wrong. When you're downloading a web page, or an ISO, or watching Youtube, or listening to internet radio, the packets are 'coming from "out there"'. On a direct internet connection, there is no way, short of DPI (Deep Packet Inspection), that the ISP can tell whether it's something you requested or not. I remember years ago when Sympatico first proposed caps+overages (5 gig down + 5 gig up). Somebody mentioned that during one of the worm attacks (Code Red, or NIMDA, I forget which) his firewall blocked 3 gigs of port-scans on port 80 in 10 days. And no, he did NOT have a web-server running.
Note that I said "direct internet connection". If an ISP puts its customers behind a NAT, then
•the customers will only get the traffic they requested
•direct P2P becomes impossible without an intermediate server providing STUN functionality
•the ISP can get by with fewer IP addresses
1) Most ISP customers (the ones who don't use P2P) will be happy.
2) The MAFIAA will be happy
3) The ISP will be happy
The ISP can even market it as a "basic firewall". |
|
SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | said by Walter Dnes:The ISP can even market it as a "basic firewall". That would appear to be a fantastic solution to a few problems. A feature rich NAT router / firewall that an ISP could sell services from. It could be programmed for USA traffic only, or even interest group white lists that could be sold as a service. It would also solve the address space problem faster than IPV6 is going to.
said by wxboss:Just kick Asia off the Internet  . They're big enough to create their own little intranet and then their bots can duke it out with each other. I have done that with my e-mail server and is highly effective. About 90% of my spam originated from foreign addresses. I imagine they keep sending it, but it falls through a crack in the floor just outside the front door. This would be another good reason to have zone features available for sale. I can't believe they are all included in the regular base price. These are the good old days, enjoy the WWW while it is still alive.
The DDOS problem needs to be attacked at the global level, the closer to the end user the better. As soon as an IP is black listed ( by computerized detection ) then the internet simply stops relaying traffic for that IP. Yet another fabulous reason to have neighborhood routers. As soon as the revenue stream is discovered by some marketing nerd at Verizrunner,T&TCox, it will take over.
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted ! |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| reply to Walter Dnes
I was referring to the attacks Karl quoted, and which were the focus of the article -- DNS, BGP hack attempts, and spam. Those aren't directed at customer lines, they're attacking the ISP infrastructure. My bad, should have been clearer....
Other than mom-n-pop small time ISPs, no one's put customers in non-routable subnets since the AOL days, if that even qualifies (I was never clear on how close they actually got to providing an internet connection as opposed to an "online service with browser access").
It's been awhile since we saw Code Red type worm behavior running rampant (though I still see the occasional Slammer worm poking at the firewall); it will be interesting to see how ISPs with caps treat that traffic. |
|
