you're not interesting, was Re: another brick in the wall[ed garden]

Sat May 16 09:37:15 UTC 2009

On May 14, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

>> [TLB:] I can think of an argument they might make: that it is/could  
>> be
>> used by bots as a fallback. However, redirecting DNS/UDP fits the  
>> model
>> of "providing a better service for the average user";
>> blocking/redirecting TCP is more likely to break things a savvy user
>> needs.
>
> 	There is still no sane reason to block TCP.  If they are
> 	intercepting DNS/UDP then they need to also intercept DNS/TCP
> 	as they will break all sites that cause "tc=1" to be set
> 	in the DNS/UDP reply.

First, since when does it require a "sane" reason to do something?

Second, and more importantly, John is right.  Sprint is a for-profit  
business.  If blocking UDP - or TCP or HTTP or whatever - makes them  
more money than not blocking it, they will do it.  And rightly so.

Of course, it is entirely possible management figured out blocking  
"DNS" was more profitable because the cost savings in lower call  
center volume more than offset the 4 people who dropped Sprint because  
of the block.  So they told engineers to 'block DNS' and the engineers  
did that without knowing that blocking TCP port 53 was not more  
profitable, and perhaps was less profitable.  Miscommunications abound  
between Engineering and Management.  This should surprise few, and  
hopefully no one on NANOG.

Assuming something like that happened, will a post to NANOG fix it?  I  
don't know.  Certainly has a non-zero chance.   But trying to get  
Sprint, or any provider, to change because _you_ think what they are  
doing is not sane is, well, not sane.

"Never appeal to a man's 'better nature,' he may not have one.  
Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

-- 
TTFN,
patrick