[correction] Re: [ga] sitefinder is back?

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's correct a key word, shall we? The key phrase
would be that you can _not_ relate this to SiteFinder,
IMHO.

-M<




At 04:06 PM 9/19/2006, kidsearch wrote:
> <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/03/1359221>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/03/1359221


This is not new news. You *cant* relate it to the SiteFinder
service since this is inside the borders of the ISP and does
not impact the global infrastructure. The relationship between
the provider and it's customers is not governed by ICANN.

It's likely they are using Paxfire. See http://www.paxfire.com/

There are some products coming out around DNS revenue
capture. If you examine what OpenDNS has done, it's taken
revenue from the providers. The providers are recapturing
that revenue. Theoretically[1], you can legitimately drop the
host routes from something like OpenDNS and redirect them to your
own solution within the confines of your own network and recapture
that revenue. We have a new layer developing between the provider
and their customers within the infrastructure they are
revenue pirates for all intents and purposes.

-M<


[1] There seems to be little reason to believe that there is any
    consequence of dropping a route to another location in a provider
    network, either redirecting it to a similiar provider operated
    service, or dropping altogether. The precedent would be Vixies
    modification of BIND in response to SiteFinder, and the creation
    and adaptation of RBL's. I am not aware of any case law to
    suppor that. IANAL.







--
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff                      Network Operations
                                               hannigan@xxxxxxxxxxx