Nxdomain redirect revenue
a.harrowell at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 06:39:53 CDT 2011
On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 04:09:22 Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
> > Just an fyi for anyone who has a marketing person dreaming up a big
> > redirect business cases, the stats are actually very very poor... it
> > not make much money at all.
> > It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields...
> > you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain redirects can be actually
> Not to take any position on there being a "business case" for
> NXDOMAIN redirect,
> or not but.... the percentage of NXdomain redirects that actually
> serve ads isn't too important.
> It's absolute numbers that matter, even if it's just 1% of
> NXDOMAINS by percent.
> The rest of the 99% are referred to as "noise" and aren't relevant
> for justifying or failing
> to justify.
> The important number is at what frequency the _average_ user will
> encounter the redirect
> while they are surfing. If a sufficient proportion of their users
> see the ads at a sufficient rate,
> then they will probably justify whatever cost they have for the ad
> When they are doing this crappy stuff like redirecting google.com DNS
> to intercept
> search requests; I have little doubt that they are able to inject
> sufficient volume of ads to
> make some sort of "business case" behind the hijacking evilness.
I think a special mention should go to hardware vendors who adopt this
dreadful practice in network equipment. I recently encountered an
enterprise-grade WLAN router from vendor D that has the horrible habit
of intercepting some % of queries to its local DNS cache resolver and
forwarding to an affiliate Yahoo! search page, lousy with ads, under
vendor D's control.
This includes things like www.google.co.uk. I don't manage this device
and therefore have opened a ticket with those who do to get them to turn
the damn thing off, while in the meantime adding *.[vendor D]search.com
127.0.0.1 to my /etc/hosts.
I must admit to being tempted to "fault" it with something heavy in
order to force its replacement:-)
But if anyone from vendor-D is on the list: congratulations, you've
managed to invent a network device that is by definition untrustworthy,
and I will never buy anything from your company.
The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail
to lists complaining about them
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the NANOG