how-to block ads
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by vpoko  :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I meant customer IP's, not the list of porn IP's.
But you bring up a good point on how do you implement this so that some customers can block the porn sites and some can see the porn sites.
Do you force customers thru the DHCP procedure to use different DNS servers(1 for porn and 1 for no-porn). Which is easily overridden, even by non-geek children, in the routers setup and in the pc's browser config.
Or do you force all subscribers who want no-porn to go thru a proxy server, which would be the only IP address accessible thru a restrictive setup in the cable or DSL modem.
Or are their easier ways on how to differentiate between porn and no-porn customers.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|  xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Since its just blocking a list of porn sites, Id think they'd just send all the http traffic through a transparent proxy. | |
| | 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP Which would have a bit of overhead. I hope it doesn't add too much though. | |
| | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP said by reub2000 :Which would have a bit of overhead. I hope it doesn't add too much though. Use of proxies can improve web content viewing. That's the whole premise behind a content-accelerator: you proxy a group of users behind a caching device. The first person to visit a site experiences a small access-time penalty (generally not something noticeable). All subsequent visitors for the target site fetch content from the local cache, not the remote site. Therefore, their fetches are done from closer hosts, thereby accelerating downloads (since the fetches are only going one or two hops, not tens of hops).
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP What about dynamic content. How would it detect that? | |
| | | | | 
Othello235
@silvereaglemfg.com | Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP As long as the page is written correctly, the author will have included a tag noting the dynamic content, which will then not be cached | |
| | | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: Bureaucratic nightmare for an ISP But what if a page was not properly marked as dynamic? I'd be POed if I couldn't see new posts on one of my favorite forums. If I wanted caching, I'd just run squid on my server.
Also, how would a web cache detect http traffic? Would it just pass all port 80 traffic. What about sites on port 83? What about sites on port 1351 or 8684? | |
| | | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by TKJunkMail :said by vpoko :Well, they don't really have to maintain a list of IP addresses. The government supplies them a list of URL's and they can just block those URL's at the DNS level. If someone wants to access a porn site by typing in its IP address, that's technically different from the using the URL. I meant customer IP's, not the list of porn IP's. But you bring up a good point on how do you implement this so that some customers can block the porn sites and some can see the porn sites. Do you force customers thru the DHCP procedure to use different DNS servers(1 for porn and 1 for no-porn). Which is easily overridden, even by non-geek children, in the routers setup and in the pc's browser config. Or do you force all subscribers who want no-porn to go thru a proxy server, which would be the only IP address accessible thru a restrictive setup in the cable or DSL modem. Or are their easier ways on how to differentiate between porn and no-porn customers. .
Set up your POP routers to do packet inspection.
Well, if they're using PPPoE for connectivity, there's already a level of authentication that could be used to apply profiles to a connection (e.g., force specific accounts through filtered proxies). A possibly more brute force method would be to send all users through HTTP proxies. Enable authentication on the proxies. Customers that have selected porn filtering get additional content-filtering rules applied to their sessions. Users not in the filtered class don't have the content-filtering rules applied.
Doable, but not something that most ISP engineers are likely to be happy to do.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | |
|
