[Chapter-delegates] net neutrality vs DNS redirection

[Steve Crocker]

At the DNS level, there's no way to tell whether the intended purpose  
of the DNS query is for browsing versus some other purpose, e.g.  
email, telnet, etc.  Moreover, "not found" is sometimes an important  
and expected answer.  The DNS protocol is used as a building block  
for lots of things, and it's expected to work as advertised.   
Substituting something else for "not existent" may seem innocuous,  
but it's not always the case.  Who gets to decide whether the  
response is helpful?

Steve

On Jul 21, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Narelle Clark wrote:

>
>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:57:11 +0200
>> From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu>
>>
>> http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/2689/206/
>>
>> In what appears to be a violation of Net Neutrality by Rogers
>> Cable, Digital Home readers are reporting that Rogers High
>> Speed Internet service has begun redirecting customers
>> "Server not found pages" to webpages laden with Rogers advertising.
>
> Without commenting specifically on what Rogers are doing, can we  
> perhaps consider the principles here?
>
> I do not understand how is this a 'net neutrality' issue?
>
> To my thinking, if the ISP *still conveys* the message that the  
> requested named service (ie DNS request) was 'not found', or 'not  
> answering' then why not supply a bunch of other potentially helpful  
> responses? And get someone else to pay for them?
>
> The issue that most ISPs are facing is that pipes to a consumer's  
> door are increasingly expensive to provide, expectations of service  
> perrformance are increasing greatly , but the rates of payment are  
> getting lower and lower. Google, Yahoo, MSN and others have proved  
> that sources of funding from advertising can cover much of a  
> service provider's overall bills, hence leading to potentially  
> lower direct costs to the end consumer.
>
> If Google et al can provide advertising alongside its search  
> outputs, why can't an ISP? Surely the principles are that it be:
> - clearly delineated from the original request
> - not impeding the use of the Internet service, eg by excessively  
> slowing it down
> - not misleading, eg by preventing genuine access where the  
> requested service IS really available
>
> I really can't see that this is a net neutrality issue at all.
>
> If I go to a bookshop asking for a certain book, which they don't  
> have, is it inappropriate for the bookshop owner to suggest another  
> of the same type, even for a fee? If I go to a shopping centre and  
> the shop I want has closed, is it inappropriate for the shop next  
> door to put a sign in the walkway saying they have similar services?
>
> To my thinking, it would be a net neutrality issue if all IP  
> traffic to 'domain name X' were redirected to 'domain name Y' after  
> a fee paid to, or other arrangement made with, the intermediate  
> service provider **WITHOUT** the customers' consent. Even with the  
> customers' consent it could well be problematic under misuse of  
> market power, or restraint of trade principles/legislation.
>
> Like I said, I can't see that this is a net neutrality issue.
>
> Which brings me to...
>
>> From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:54:29 +0000 (UTC)
>>
>> reminds me of the spat on wildcards with Verisign some years
>> ago. Quoting it could be a good precedent Rogers clients may
>> want to use. Rogers may not want to get into a similar mess.
>
> What happened with Verisign was vastly different. Verisign were  
> redirecting failed queries to their own pages, but that is where  
> the similarity stops.
>
> Verisign are much higher up the DNS chain than the local ISP. Many,  
> many ISPs and large organisations rely on the top level DNS  
> infrastructure that Verisign provide.
>
>> From their web site: "VeriSign operates the Domain Name System  
>> (DNS) servers that support the .com and .net top-level domains,  
>> and has been operating these servers for nine years with 100%  
>> availability. In this capacity, VeriSign has facilitated as many  
>> as 32 billion DNS queries in a single day."
>
> Redirecting TOP LEVEL DNS queries when ISPs all over the world were  
> *relying* on *standards based responses* to keep their DNS  
> databases intact and their servers accurate and timely is a vastly  
> different thing to a local ISP providing additional (probably for  
> fee) information to consumers to support their web browsing  
> experience.
>
>
> All the best
>
>
> Narelle
> ISOC-AU
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates