Slashdot Mirror


Google Caught in Comcast Traffic Filtering?

marcan writes "Comcast users are reporting 'connection reset' errors while loading Google. The problem seems to have been coming and going over the past few days, and often disappears only to return a few minutes later. Apparently the problem only affects some of Google's IPs and services. Analysis of the PCAP packet dumps reveals several injected fake RSTs, which are very similar to the ones seen coming from the Great Firewall of China [PDF]. Did Google somehow get caught up in one of Comcast's blacklists, or are the heuristics flagging Google as a file-sharer due to the heavy traffic?"

59 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Not me... by omeomi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm on Comcast, and haven't had any problems. Doesn't mean they're not doing it elsewhere, but they don't seem to be doing it here.

    1. Re:Not me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm on Comcast, and I haven't had any problems either.

      I also posted my Comcast anecdote on Slashdot, and haven't been flamed for it yet.

    2. Re:Not me... by Drachemorder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm on Comcast and I do notice some unusual "connection reset" errors every now and then. More than I would normally expect, at least. They happen when I'm trying to telnet/SSH into my Linux box from outside, when I try to download something on Steam, in fact during nearly anything that requires a connection to be established for any significant period of time. I never used to have this problem before Comcast assimilated my previous cable provider. Makes me wonder if it's deliberate.

    3. Re:Not me... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      But in this case it just sounds like they can't figure out how to do it right.

      It's not that they can't figure it out, it's that they aren't even bothering to try and shape traffic. They'd rather interfere with it.

      Back in my ISP days we ran our entire operation (400 dial-in lines and about 60 WISP clients) off two un-bonded T-1s (they went to different POPs for redundancy). We couldn't afford to add more bandwidth at the edge, so I hacked together a traffic shaping setup using Linux. It prioritized ssh, telnet, TCP ACKs, icmp packets, and the VPNs of our business clients. VoIP wasn't a big concern in those days but had it been I would have prioritized it as well. When online gaming started becoming big we started giving that traffic priority over bulk transfers as well.

      The bulk downloaders/p2p'ers didn't notice or complain. They still got the lions share of the bandwidth -- and are you really going to notice if your transfer gets 139KB/s instead of 140KB/s due to that ssh packet moving ahead of you in the queue? During peak hours my T-1s were running at 90-95% of capacity but my users were all still humming along quite nicely, none the wiser. There was more to this then just traffic shaping (we also had a pretty slick squid setup), but the point is we got along just fine with our limited resources.

      If we could fucking do it, then sure as hell Comcast could. They have apparently decided that it's better to block/drop the traffic then shape it. If they had real competition they'd probably pay for this over the long run.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Not me... by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm rather certain the root of your woes is Comcast. I am not certain it's intentional.

      Furthermore, the problem is very likely far more simple and less sophisticated than this issue of packet spoofing.

      Set up a continuous ping to something "nearby" (your gateway, your DNS ser ver, your neighbor, whatever) in your Comcast network and tee it to a file. Leave it up for days and you'll likely see periods of time where you have no service for patches of time... often long enough to kill sessions.

      I very often have problems with any sort of sessions (SSH, VPN, etc.) staying up for long periods of time because the underlying line level reliability is so poor. I can watch my cable modem logs and see many resets, timeouts, etc.

      I laugh whenever asked about phone service via Comcast. Sadly, however, this pathetic reliability also precludes Vonage and the like. And I find this a bit sad since while I do not consider Comcast capable of running a world class network, I loathe the phone company. Those guys are more competent but much more directly evil.

    5. Re:Not me... by mdm-adph · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, but you weren't a big MEGA-COM-CONGLOMO-CORP -- I'm convinced they're doing this because it gets their jollies up, nothing more.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    6. Re:Not me... by rrkap · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thanks for adding anecdotal noise to the discussion that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

      Gee, I think that anecdotal evidence is interesting, especially if you're interested in understanding what rules Comcast uses to decide which packets to block. Questions like: "Is it the whole network or just portions (I suspect just portions)?" or "Is it all the time or during peak demand?" Please try to be civil. If a comment isn't valuable, it won't be modded up. If it is valuable it will.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    7. Re:Not me... by pthor1231 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get by their customer ID process really easily. Call in, give them the subscribers phone number, and if they ask the name on the account, tell them. Doesn't necessarily mean its your name. If they ask for more identifying info, just say you are a flatmate with the subscriber, and you are calling on his behalf because of a problem. I have never had an issue with that.

    8. Re:Not me... by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Informative

      choke on it... it IS comcast. Your intermittent problems keeping a session open are inarguably unacceptable in view of the wider experience of broadband users in North America. My provider is rock solid in my area. I regularly keep open as many as 6 sessions that do not see lost packets, never mind service unavailable. for example: active SL connection(s), Vonage call, Internet Radio, NNTP session, and active web browsing. None of these suffer a problem. In fact, the only problems I've had were / are on the wireless links. My microwave and wireless router apparently disagree on the topic of which is more powerful.

      If we look at what is promised, what is purchased, what is possible, and compare that to what is experienced, it is clear that some ISPs suck, and there is a reason that they suck. Suckiness is not 'normal' or 'average' or acceptable. With the FCC ruling to allow multiple ISP connectivity to many homes, the quality of service should improve to prevent customer churn. My advice is to switch if complaints are not resolved if you can. If not, register a complaint with the authority who gave your ISP broadband monopoly in your area. Document the complaint process and responses. The BBB, I believe, can be consulted in cases where they clearly are not giving you what you paid for.

    9. Re:Not me... by Dmala · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah, the basic problem is that the bigger the company, the higher the density of PHBs. Once you get to a certain concentration, you hit stupidity critical mass. From the outside it looks like malice, but it's really just highly focused incompetence.

    10. Re:Not me... by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One option is openvpn with the default UDP port for those situations. I use it to connect to work's 1G/1G net connection. Also works great for a-hole hotels (I'm looking at YOU Hotel Valencia in San Jose...) that have their system configured to reset all connections every 3 minutes which makes it impossible to even download email. Morons.

    11. Re:Not me... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the right way to handle traffic in the net - drop the priority for packages that aren't sensitive and promote packages that are sensitive to delays. If the lines are up to their throughput limit this is the way to go, and doing it right will not have any really bad effect on the users.

      Intentionally dropping data packages is much more evil since that interferes with the functionality and ultimately drives up the network traffic - not down - since many more packages has to be sent and re-sent to provide communication. Bad network conditions also spins power-users to tweak their network settings to be more aggressive. And if the the conditions gets really bad there is a risk that P2P software developers circumvents this by sending redundant information driving the bandwidth use even higher.

      But it also has to be figured out if this really is intentional or if the ISP is using equipment with bugs that actually causes this behavior. Since Google is one of the sites that's frequently used it may be that there is a buffer overflow in a router. And if there is a company policy for a certain vendor and a certain setup of that equipment this has a tendency to spread.

      Anyway - one of the interesting things reported is that accessing Google through IP address works fine, but not through the DNS resolution. This makes me suspect that the problem is rather related to a certain server or a DNS resolution problem that triggers this problem. Can be an intermediate DNS server that can't handle load-balancing but instead directs all traffic to a single server, which ultimately gets soaked. (maybe not the server, but the channel to the server).

      And ultimately - there possibilities available range from being evil to being stupid. Just the kind of story you can read in Dilbert.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re:Not me... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, if that were really the only problem.

      There are two kinds of big mistakes you can make: those that are big for a company your size, and those that are just plain big. In a big company with lots of customers, small mistakes are multiplied by volume into just plain big mistakes. If you've got gross revenues of a million dollars, a mistake with a potential $100,000 impact is big for your business, but not that big. You can survive it, you can reestablish credibility with your customers (whom you know face to face) by personally eating a helping of crow in front of each and every one. If you're in a company a 100x as big, you're talking maybe a $10M impact that if laid to the account of any individual employee is a disaster beyond that individual's ability to make right.

      That's why large companies can develop a special kind of stupidity, preferring a status quo that is certainly wrong to any alternative that is only probably right. Individuals protect themselves using exactly the same strategy that schooling fish employ. Any decision has to have so many fingerprints on it that firing the people who can be tied to a mistake is like cutting off your right arm. That's why big defense contractors are probably the most bureaucratic organizations on the planet. Ordinary mortals have to make decisions that can have impacts measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. In any such situation, you obviously need a form of collective responsibility, the question is what form it takes. It's all to easy to develop an organization that protects individuals by being unable to detect and respond to most problems. We didn't know about it, if we had we probably couldn't do anything about it, and if we could have, it wasn't my job.

      The problem is not that a typical PHB is necessarily stupid. The problem is that organizations are built in a way that rewards people for acting in a stupid way. But stupidity is all too common. Even stupid people can manage to be cunning in bad organizations, because they are problems in an organization built around willful blindness to problems. It's more of a challenge for intelligent people I suppose, because it's hard for people with imagination to find much satisfaction in what it takes to get ahead in these places. It has even been suggested that sociopaths make good managers, which I doubt. But I can well believe that feigned stupidity is better in some cases than the real thing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Not me... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It just started hitting me within the last month or two, and it's so bad now that I've literally had to bring Speakeasy in and move my Subversion, FTP & web servers over to that connection. I know Comcast doesn't officially support servers, but I've been running all kinds of them without issue until just recently.

      You know, since providers and governments are breaking TCP/IP with these strategies, I think it warrants some sort of firewall extension to run heuristics on RST packets and try to determine which ones are suspect & should be dropped. Then it's just a matter of getting every "guy on the other end" to use it. ;-)

    14. Re:Not me... by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They dont try and shape traffic because they dont want to shape traffic. Its not just about the bandwidth used by P2P, its also about the fact that P2P is used for so much piracy. Why bother to pay Comcast $$$ for HBO when you can download the shows you wanted from HBOTorrents.com (or other BitTorrent site). Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there are back room secret deals going on where the big media corps are telling Comcast that they have to do their best to make illegal file sharing on their networks unusable and in return they get access to the channels & content from the big media corps at better rates (ala the Microsoft "sell only windows or else we charge you more for it" back room deals that are rumored to exist)

  2. Get the facts by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    70% of all "file sharers" use Google. Anyone with even a small background in statistics can see that Google is behind all this piracy. Comcast is simply watching out for our economy. I say good for them. Now if they would only do something about that wretched Slashdot and its wanker community.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Get the facts by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

      -1, Troll? This should have been modded funny. Or ignored. Or overated if it bothers you that much. But troll? I hope you pay in meta-mod.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Get the facts by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lately?

      I have noticed this stuff happening for over a year or more. Of course I speak my mind on a lot of issues that goes against the grain. For instance, stuff like the domestic spying- I usually point out that it is far from domestic which get troll, flame bait, and overrated modifiers all the time. It has been a situation for a while now and I have a working theory on it.

      The theory goes something like this. When we started seeing the politics sections appear (that was supposed to be temporary but stayed forever) I started seeing political motivated posts that were basically rehashes of some party line talking point getting moderated insightful while common sense posts about the topic in hand was being modded off topic, under rated or some other negetive moderation. I began watching and it appear that either an organized group or groups of people have signed up in order to press a particular view or the sites own administration is doing it to some extent. Judging by the constant links to political sites like media matters and moveon.org by posters themselves, I'm starting to think it is a group of ideolgs doing it.

      Of course I can prove anything other then by saying it is my personal observations. But if you start looking at it in this light, you will likely see the trend happening too. Of course to what degree will probably depend on your political bias. But you should definitely see a pattern rising that will worsen coming to a major election time.

    3. Re:Get the facts by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lol.. I wasn't talking only about myself. I surf at -1 and see a lot of the comments modded down. And yes, I know when something is off topic like this is.

      You wouldn't happen to be one of the people I talked about attempting to dispel knowledge of this are you? There we go, the tinfoil hat is back in place and everythign feels right again.

      Either look around or keep your eyes shut. It doesn't matter much to me. But I call them as I see them. I haven't been wrong often.

    4. Re:Get the facts by ozbird · · Score: 2, Funny

      I haven't been asked to meta-mod for ages... Did I get marked down in meta-meta-mod?
      ("Who watches the watchers?")

  3. Google *is* the file-sharer by Paeva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all, doesn't Google host more copyrighted content than any other person/company in the world? ;)

  4. Gmail Notifier by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Starting yesterday my Gmail Notifier Firefox extension stopped working at home where we have Comcast, but at work it works just fine. I thought maybe the plugin had broken due to some API changes or something but I thought it was odd it worked one place and not the other. This really seems like it's related and even though I believe Gmail Notifier is a third party extension, it's still accessing Google's servers.

    Comcast is really pissing me off. But what's my other option: Qwest DSL.

    1. Re:Gmail Notifier by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Comcast is really pissing me off. But what's my other option: Qwest DSL. Thankfully, I had RCN as an option. I pay them $20 extra per month for a static IP and run my home Web server and mail gateway there. I've never had a problem downloading Ubuntu or Fedora distributions with BitTorrent; Web traffic incoming or outgoing; or... well, anything.

      Call your city. Ask them to re-evaluate Comcast as the local Cable provider or do what my town did: offer RCN as a competing provider.
  5. I hope they get slapped by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hard. Nothing worse than a pissed off multi-billion dollar company suing your ass off. That will teach them.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:I hope they get slapped by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They get fined, and a month later my bill goes up a couple of dollars to pay it off. No real penalty.

  6. unfair competition by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is the title clear enough? I can't imagine any judge or jury saying Comcast is allowed to impersonate Google and tell Comcast customers they're not allowed to use Google's services or that Google's services are overwhelmed and shutting down connections. That's essentially what forged, fraudulent RST packets from a MITM attack are doing. That can't possibly be considered a legitimate business practice in court.

    1. Re:unfair competition by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's essentially what forged, fraudulent RST packets from a MITM attack are doing

      I fail to see how they think these types of "traffic management" tools will work in the long run. It's only going to encourage the P2P users to adopt more protocol masking/encryption techniques to hide from these devices. And then what are you left with? Blocking encrypted traffic? Breaking the internet by refusing to route packets directly between end-users and only routing them to major sites?

      In a fair world with a fair marketplace they'd have two options. They could choose either one and the market would decide which was best: 1) Stop selling unlimited service and switch to a metered model. 2) Upgrade their friggen network to support it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:unfair competition by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm still not convinced the bandwidth is Comcast's major concern. Comcast still makes the majority of their money from being a cable company, and only uses Internet access as a diversification method, don't they? All the Comcast commercials I see are for cable TV, not for Internet access.

      It seems to me the whole rage against P2P traffic (which is how lots of games are played, BTW, and how almost all VPNs are set up) is not so much about capacity as about a conflict of interests on the part of Comcast. They're the content delivery network for TV programming and music (they have music channels like DirecTV does, don't they?). They are wanting to make sure you use your cable TV for getting video and audio, because that's where they get a bigger cut.

    3. Re:unfair competition by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's an interesting take on it. And as far as I'm aware there is no DSL provider in the United States doing anything like this. It certainly seems to be the case in the wireless world. The carriers removing or blocking features that may compete with their own content offerings.

      One wonders what the solution to this is. Prohibit someone from being in the content business AND the delivery business at the same time? They'd fight you tooth and nail on that -- and you'd have the "free market" types after you as well.

      In any case I think they will shoot themselves in the foot in the long run. What happens when all P2P traffic is encrypted and looks like any other encrypted protocol (ssh, ssl, etc)? At that point you may be able to identify WHICH subscriber is using p2p (bittorrent stands out like a sore thumb for the sheer volume of connections it establishes) but how will you identify which individual packet is p2p and shape it? Or will they just start sending random RST packets to ALL your connections, including (as TFA suggests) Google?

      If bandwidth IS the issue then in the long run they only have two options. Invest in some upgrades or stop selling "unlimited" service. Personally I'd take the best of both worlds. I'd offer a "premium" package aimed at p2p users (no monthly bandwidth limit and/or higher speeds) and use the money from that to expand my network.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:unfair competition by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are on a metered model! They just don't tell you what your limit is.

      That's not quite true. My electric company won't cut off my service if I use more electric this month then I did at the same time last year.

      Metered service could work in one of two ways. They provide you with X gigabytes of bandwidth and charge you an overage rate for each gigabyte over that (or cut you off for the rest of the month), or they just charge you X dollars per gigabyte and maybe a small monthly fee. That's how electric or gas works.

      That said, I don't think metered service would play very well. What happens when someone gets a huge bill because of their PC being owned? It'd be a PR nightmare for them and their competitors would doubtless use it against them (our service is unlimited!). So they'd have little choice but to invest in their network.

      I actually have some sympathy for them. But it only goes so far. They shouldn't have the right to sell something as "unlimited" when it's really not. Plain and simple.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Would be kind of awesome... by Luke+Dawson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If Google were being wrongly flagged, and Google ends up suing the ass off Comcast to put an end to this bullshit.

  8. iptables fake RST detector by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    use connection tracking on this one:

    iptables -I INPUT -j LOG -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -m conntrack --ctstate NEW,INVALID

    The fake RST will probably not have a valid sequence number for the established TCP connection, so the Linux stack will flag it as a NEW connection, and the fact that you're getting a RST for a NEW connection should be good enough alarm.

    Or maybe it would also work with just the matching code

    iptables -I INPUT -j LOG -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -m state --state NEW,INVALID

    What do y'all think?

    1. Re:iptables fake RST detector by anticypher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problems with a fake RST detector are two-fold. The RST bits are being set on TCP traffic sent in both directions on a connection, so even if you ignore RST teardowns, the other side will tear down the connection. What Sandvine boxes do is just flip the RST bits on TCP packets flowing through them, so the sequence numbers will appear correct in the connection tracking table because the TCP packet is a valid one from the other side of the connection.

      If Comcast truly is using Sandvine boxes, then this could be a network controller station with the preset examples still in place. The Sandvine sales presentation shows how to load up the system with all the prefixes from AS36561, and then interfere with a tiny percentage of TCP traffic after the first few hundred packets are transferred. What this does is provide a way of denying they are completely blocking those packets, but will blow away any connection hoping to do streaming video or cruise around on a web page heavy in graphic content like a mapping function.

      The business model after installing Sandvine boxes is to then extort regular payments from large content providers to allow access to their network. Comcast, SBC/ATT and a few other monopolistic ISPs would like to see both sides of a connection pay for traffic in both directions, not the current economic model where each side pays for their own access or transit.

      What Sandvine boxes do is break the end-to-end model of the internet. Even a tiny percentage of broken connections will put an end to all the cool applications everyone is currently enjoying. Streaming video and audio sessions, VoIP calls, file downloads, p2p exchanges, search engines, mapping and geolocation, and heavy web content sessions like social networking sites. The only traffic that can survive this kind of interference are from applications that make repeated attempts at connection in case of unexpected interruptions, like SMTP.

      P2P protocol designers are pretty agile and clever. In the face of regular faked TCP RST bits on a connection, they'll evolve the protocol to make shorter connections, and to make repeated attempts to reconnect when an unexpected RST is received. Expect tuning "knobs" in clients very soon now, on how resilient to make the connections or how many bytes to transfer before tearing down and rebuilding the connection. There could also be a way to limit the numbers of attempted connections so as to fly under the radar of systems like this. I can open any bittorrent client with a single popular file, and see over 1000 completed TCP connections within 2 to 3 minutes. Limiting the number of new connections per minute could throw a spanner in Sandvine's current design.

      the AC

      --
      Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
    2. Re:iptables fake RST detector by nanoflower · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone already came up with solutions that seem to work for both Windows and Linux For Windows: http://redhatcat.blogspot.com/2007/09/beating-sandvine-on-windows-with-wipfw.html For Linux http://redhatcat.blogspot.com/2007/09/beating-sandvine-with-linux-iptables.html

  9. Google could fix Comcast's ass tout suite by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    When loading a Google Page, an intermediate page pops up saying

    "Your ISP is interfering with the transmission of data requested from Google our users, and as a result we are unable to consistently provide advanced services to you. You will be redirected to a more basic version of Google's services so that we can provide as much as we can in the manner you have come to expect from us".

    Wait 10 seconds, then redirect to Google's non-AJAX pages.

    I predict hordes with torches and pitchforks (led by a little old lady with a claw hammer)

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Google could fix Comcast's ass tout suite by Sangui5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be great if they also provided links to various federal and state fraud statutes...

      And links to your state's AG office...

      And little adwords ads on the side for local law firms.

  10. Google Web Accelerator Error by Laoping · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not sure if this is anything, but I use Google Web Accelerator on Comcast at home. Lately, I have been getting a lot of DNS issues at home with it. When I take my laptop to school, I do not get any DNS issues.

  11. Re:It could be technical incompetence by reset_button · · Score: 2, Informative
    It seems like it's not DNS. From the forum:

    I'm in Houston on Comcast and noticed this as well. For the record, I use the OpenDNS servers, so unless multiple DNS servers are having trouble reaching Google, the problem is most likely with Comcast.

    I noticed this same thing in Seattle on Comcast. I use my works DNS so its definitely not a DNS issue as I can do a "ping google.com" and get the ip lookup address. The ping times out but typing the ip address into my browser works.

    I've experienced problems connecting to google for a couple months and have been following the DSL reports thread. DNS has been eliminated from the equation so it appears that the problem is due to some unforeseen consequence of sandvine filtering or some other massive screwup at Comcast.
    The problem is spoofed RST packets.
  12. Push it one step further... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if Google, a (justifiably) huge advocate of network neutrality, is deliberately sending the type of RST packets that imitate Comcast's faked packets, specifically to Comcast IP addresses, knowing the inevitable fallout that would result? It would make an already bad situation for Comcast far, far worse, and it's likely that the requested Senate investigation would turn into nails in the coffin for those who want preferential treatment of packets on the Internet.

    For a company that does no evil, if they could pull it off, it would be absolutely diabolical. But then, it could easily be one of those "ends justify the means" kinds of situations. At any rate, all I can say is "MWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!! Suckers!"

    (No, I don't actually believe that's what's happening, but man, what an AWESOME plan to make network neutrality happen once and for all.)

    1. Re:Push it one step further... by random+coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...it could easily be one of those 'ends justify the means' kinds of situations."

      The ends should justify the means. The problem is when you start thinking the ends justify ANY means.

  13. going on for months with google maps by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been unable to use Google maps for months now on Comcast. I have called them, but, you can guess how that went. Yahoo maps and Mapquest work fine, but on Google I get about half the tiles filled in before it stops. And I mean it stops. It ends up looking like a checkerboard. Occassionally it will finish a couple of minutes later, but typically it never does.

    Getting Comcast to fix it seems unlikely.

  14. Go even further and ignore fake RST? by SIGBUS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This looks like it could be extended - add a -j DROP rule after the -j LOG (log the offending packet, and then send it to the bit bucket).

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  15. Re:First hand experience here by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's called DNS caching.

    Did you actually flush your DNS caches like, say, the one in your router, the one in your linksys box, the one on your PC? You can do it manually but the quickest way for a lot of equipment is to reboot. Hence the suggestion.

    Additionally, it was quite likely google because something on your machine (maybe yourself "trying" the connection) had accessed google while the DNS redirection was in place (that was how they "redirected" you to their page). Once you'd done it once it'd linger until the TTL's had expired all the way back to your computer. Ping, nslookup, etc. would ALL show the Comcast IP until that happened, which could be minutes, hours, days, months, depending on your setup.

    In your case, it looks like it was less than 24-hours, because it worked the next day without having to reboot. If you had rebooted immediately, it would have all worked when it came back up. That's WHY he was telling you that.

    Before you start throwing accusations around, delve into such things just a little bit deeper.

  16. time for IPSec? by mikeee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IPSec would thwart this sort of attack (since it encrypts at the IP layer, you can't forge a RST packet in the TCP header). Yeah, it costs more CPU, but that's not a problem for modern PC clients, and I suspect Google can handle it, too. Is it time for this to become SOP?

    Now, whether MS would be cooperative in that, I dunno... I know XP supports it, but not too much about configuration specifics.

  17. Re:Can we please pay attention to the dates... by marx · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're looking at the date the posters joined the forum, not the date of the post.

  18. Not comcast by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your OWN COMPUTER was redirecting you to Comcast (maybe you should be indignant towards Microsoft? >_>). It's called DNS caching.

    In Windows a simple ipconfig /flushdns can take care of that, although some applications, such as Firefox, keep their own DNS caches which must also be cleared (In Firefox there's a DNS cache timeout in about:config somewhere, you just set it to 0 and then back and that should flush the cache).

    Also the tech was almost right... restarting your computer WOULD have fixed it (since DNS caches are only kept in memory and would have been wiped when you rebooted) although it wouldn't have been the OPTIMAL solution.

    Let me take you through the steps your computer took.

    1. You try to access Google while your billing issue is present.
    2. The Comcast DNS server gets your request for www.google.com.
    3. The DNS server sees you haven't been paying your bills (so they think, anyways) so instead of returning the IP address of google.com, it returns the IP address of the Comcast server.
    4. Your computer receives this address. It has no way of knowing it's not really Google.
    5. It saves the address in the DNS cache so it won't have to look it up later.
    6. Your computer connects to this IP address and requests the webpage.
    7. The Comcast server returns a boilerplate "GIVE ME MONEY" page.
    8. Time passes and you fix the billing problem.
    9. The Comcast servers take you off the "redirect all traffic to Comcast" list so all future DNS requests will be correct.
    10. You try to access Google again.
    11. Your computer notes that you've already accessed this website, so it already knows the IP address (so it thinks). It skips the DNS step and uses the already known IP address (which is actually Comcast's).
    12. Your computer connects to this IP address and requests the webpage.
    13. The Comcast server returns a boilerplate "GIVE ME MONEY" page.
    14. You call tech support and complain, and fail to implement the proposed solution.
    15. You leave for the airport.
    16. Your computer (assuming you left it on) notes that it's been a while since you DNSed www.google.com. Thus it deletes the IP from it's cache, and will requery it again.
    17. You return from the airport and try google.com again.
    18. The Comcast DNS server gets your request for www.google.com.
    19. No billing issue, so it returns the proper address for Google.
    20. Your computer receives this address.
    21. It saves the address in the DNS cache so it won't have to look it up later.
    22. Your computer connects to this IP address and requests the webpage.
    23. Google returns it's homepage.
  19. Comcast shenaigans by Danathar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently moved from one house serviced by comcast to another and I can tell you there is DEFINTELY something screwy going on, and it's not just bittorrent trafic.

    I've done bandwidth tests and my upstream STARTS at a nice 1.5MB/s and then 15 seconds later drops to 30K/s EVERY TIME.

    What this does is give false results when people are doing speed tests. When you do your test you get great results (in my case 15Mb/s downstream and almost 2Mb/s upstream) for the first 15 or 20 seconds. Then after that it just BLOWS.

  20. Wikipedia page by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someone knowledgeable about this issue should update the wikipedia page about sandvine.

    The way it's written now, everyone should use Sandvine - it sounds like wonderful software.

  21. applications for testing ISPs? by m2943 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a lot of guesswork here about what providers may or may not be doing; are there any applications for actually testing ISPs? Such testing apps would discover traffic shaping, port filtering, connectivity, and other traffic modifications by the ISP. Something like a bandwidth tester on steroids.

  22. Google home page, but not services by biohack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was working from home last week, so I was using my Comcast connection extensively every day. The problems with Google connection happened several times a day. Intermittently, my attempts to connect to www.google.com failed for 5-10 min at a time. Oddly enough, going directly to Google services (Gmail, Notebook, Bookmarks, etc.) worked just fine.

  23. Re:Oh me oh my! by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Putting an extraneous link in front of your posts like you did is spam. Having said that, putting the link into your signature is accepted practice here. It's less annoying and nobody will get upset.

  24. Re:follow the money by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    comcast.net search is still powered by google, I wonder if they looked at my search term "comcast [RST]" on the way out?

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  25. Fair? Who is saying anything about fair? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to go with the dutch situation because that is the one I know.

    In holland you used to have PTT (Post, Telecom, Telegram) which was owned by the state and also had banking services. Basically they where huge, slow, old but worked and kept things under control. For instance Postbank does NOT charge end users for tranferring money and has a free debit card. Essentially for normal people banking in holland was FREE and paid an interest if you had a postive balance.

    But no that was not good enough, we needed competition and PTT was split up into the mail segment, the phone segment (KPN) and the bank segment (postbank) (The whole story is a bit more complex)

    KPN now is a commercial business competing on a free market. Yeah right, it was the state that lay down the copper network that they essentially got for free. How is any other business supposed to compete with that?

    It is as laughable as competing the NS (dutch railway) which is now supposed to be a commercial company, but got all its infrastructure for free. Oh yeah, they got to pay a few million each year, how does this compare with the cost of installing a rail network thatruns right to major cities?

    Free market and fair market are insane ideas by themselves, but the idea that you can have BOTH is so laughable it is to cry.

    For telecoms the problems is the wire, who has the wire, controls the user. So either you put in very heavy regulation to make sure everyone can access those wires (not a free market) or you accept that those who happen to inherit the wires own the customer (not a fair market).

    The idea that a new player in the market can just install their own network is idiotic, the costs are extreme and the benefits miniscule, plus do we really want anymore companies digging up roads?

    We are in luck that years ago cable tv happened, else the telecoms would totally own the internet. Now at least we got two end-point networks in the ground, but as The Netherlands showed, until the phone network was forcibly opened and a third part could enter the market and start offering better service for less money only then did the cable companies start to improve theirs.

    At least on the phone network you now got plenty of supplies, yes they use the underlying KPN network, but some of them are indeed competing by just selling you bandwidth and nothing else. You rent a pipe from them, and that is what you get.

    Offcourse, you pay for that, and as long as Joe Average continues to only look at the initial price, companies that offer real quality with no hidden strings are going to lose out.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  26. When Google calls Comcast by sherriw · · Score: 5, Funny

    *Comcast phone ringing at head office*

    Comcast Secretary: Hello, thank you for calling Com-

    Google Big Cheese: This is Google Inc. calling, I want to talk to whoever's in charge. Now.

    Comcast Secretary: I don't know who you think you are but-

    Google: Go visit google.com right now.

    *secretary visits google.com, google recognizes the comcast head office IP range and serves up a pdf of a lawsuit document (Comcast as defendant) instead of the google homepage*

    Secretary: Oh my, one moment please I'll transfer you.

    Comcast Big Boss: What? I'm busy lining my socks with money and throwing darts at customer photos.

    Google: This is Google Inc. You know why I'm calling.

    Comcast: *stutters* y-yes, but we have the right to do whatever we need to, to ensure that our networks....

    Google: Seriously?

    Comcast: Seriously what?

    Google: Seriously, you want to mess with us? Are you sure?

    Comcast: *Long pause, and painful griding noises of "thinking"* Well... I think you overestimate how powerful you a-

    Google: You have a lot to lose 'my friend'. You have 823 employees using Gmail. 138 office locations on Google Maps, 2,345 website pages indexed by the google search engine that recieve a collective 546 thousand search hits per day from Google Search. You currently rank first for the search term "cable internet" and nearly all your press releases are picked up by Google News. Do I need to go on?

    Comcast: *speechless silence* ... Uh, um, I- I'll talk to our engineers about getting this straighted up right away... sir.

    Google: That's right. And be quick about it. *snaps fingers*

    --
    (All numbers are made up)
    Yeah, that's what I see coming...

  27. From the guy in the second link by aderusha · · Score: 2, Informative

    This had me up far too late yesterday trying to figure out WTF is going on.

    Here's the condensed version:
    * Pings work fine, other websites work fine - only HTTP to google.com with a "google.com" host header is affected
    * HTTP 1.0 without host header isn't affected
    * Going to one of google's web servers by IP works fine (no "google.com" host header)
    * I am typically seeding torrents and was at the time of each service interruption
    * TCP RSTs follow a specific pattern. 2 RSTs in rapid succession in response to the initial GET statement (1 with a valid SEQ, one with a SEQ in the 12xxx range), followed by a second batch of the same. As the article here states (and as I posted in the linked thread), this matches perfectly with results from the China firewall
    * The problem went away at almost exactly 12:00am EDT this morning (give or take a minute)
    * This is from a Comcast subscriber in Grand Rapids, MI.

    For more detail, visit the thread linked. I have links to the raw packet capture data in .pcap format if you'd like to take a look.

  28. Re:Oh me oh my! by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's face facts - Slashdot geeks will get upset over anything. There's no hope for someone who tries not to offend here. You can't help but piss off some lonely basement dweller no matter what you do.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  29. Comcast & DNS by DieByWire · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm on a Comcast business account. I recently had a problem where a working, light loaded Postfix installation suddenly had 10-20% of my outbound email traffic just hang. Verbose logging showed that the problem always occured at the DNS query stage. Mail sent through a backup server suffered the same fate.

    Using tcpdump showed that all the bad dns queries stopped after 4 frames, while the successful ones went 68 or 70 frames.

    Switching from Comcast's regional DNS servers to their national DNS servers fixed the problem immediately.

    Makes me wonder what they're doing on the regional ones.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  30. Re:First hand experience here by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just hoping for an informative here:

    I believe that 4.2.2.1 - 4.2.2.5 (or maybe 6) are all DNS servers for Level3, in case you want multiples available.

  31. Far more likely by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's far more likely that Google, rather than imitate Comcast's packets, would instead alter some subset of their traffic in a way that would make it more likely it would trigger Comcast's filtering. No need to fake the interference--it's actually there. Just figure out how to trigger it and you have your talking point.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.