dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
14
rotohoto
join:2012-03-31
canada

rotohoto to humanfilth

Member

to humanfilth

Re: Odd problem - Shaw + Firefox = No Google!

I guess you could argue from a policy standpoint it's Shaw's fault... since they agreed to have the cache in the first place.

But Google doesn't just operate it security-wise, they operate it completely everything-wise.
Shaw plugs it in and fires up a BGP session. Shaw can see how much traffic is going in to and out of the boxes, and that's about it.
Google handles everything to do with the operation of it, even so far as to deciding what percentage of Shaw users get pointed to it, and for what services.

A lot of people have experienced issues caused by these caches, but I'd be more inclined to lay blame for that on Google.

kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB

kevinds

Premium Member

Co-located is the proper term I think...

Just the same if I put my server in a Shaw data center, it is still my server, I'm the only one with access to it...

humanfilth
join:2013-02-14
river styx

1 edit

humanfilth to rotohoto

Member

to rotohoto
said by rotohoto:

I guess you could argue from a policy standpoint it's Shaw's fault...

flipping through the linked firefox forum thread, seems people are having issues getting to default encrypted facebook as well, plus some other encrypted sites.

The firefox fix is turning down the encryption strength. Real bad fix.

[sarcasm] Probably just Canada's NSA(CSEC) putting in new keys for homeland-insecurity or maybe a transparent proxy.

edit: the firefox mozilla thread replies say is now fixed....