Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Networking Businesses Google The Internet

Google Caught in Comcast Traffic Filtering? 385

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Caught in Comcast Traffic Filtering?

Comments Filter:
  • Not me... (Score:3, Informative)

    by omeomi ( 675045 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:04AM (#21170081) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:Not me... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Drachemorder ( 549870 ) <brandon&christiangaming,org> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:49AM (#21170717) Homepage
      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.
      • by omeomi ( 675045 )
        More than I would normally expect, at least. They happen when I'm trying to telnet/SSH into my Linux box from outside,

        That's interesting. I have had resets when SSHing one specific Linux box that I use for work, whereas all others have been fine. I don't know if that box is on a Comcast connection or not. But I haven't had any troubles SSHing into my own box from elsewhere.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by walt-sjc ( 145127 )
          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.

      • Re:Not me... (Score:5, Informative)

        by ChromaticDragon ( 1034458 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @11:14AM (#21171153)
        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.

        • Re:Not me... (Score:4, Informative)

          by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:33PM (#21172375) Journal
          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.
      • What would be interesting to me is to know where these complaints are coming from. In my part of town (just outside Baltimore City), I've yet to notice any connection resets happening. I've been running on Comcast cable for about 4 years now, no problems. I've got dynamic DNS setup and connect to my machine daily via SSH. I'm pretty liberal with my use of bittorrent as well.

        It seems like a new article pops up every week that blasts Comcast for these pratices. I'm losing count. I just keep hoping it doesn't
        • Re: (Score:3, 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 wh
    • I'm not having any problems either.

      One thing that doesn't bother me is that ISPS should do some traffic shaping if the line is saturated. That is OK by me. Hell, if there was really that big of a problem I would support having cache-technology on the ISP side that websites could enable. Why should I have to pull 'panda sneezing' from California when my neighbor just looked at it? Why am I not pulling it from my ISP's servers in downtown Chicago? Of course this would need to be approved by the site that has
      • Re:Not me... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @11:06AM (#21171021) Journal

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by mdm-adph ( 1030332 )
          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.
          • Re:Not me... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dmala ( 752610 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:39PM (#21172503)
            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.
            • Re:Not me... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:23PM (#21175145) Homepage Journal
              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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

          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 pro

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jonwil ( 467024 )
          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 (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 un
    • 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 failed for 5-10 min at a time. Oddly enough, going directly to Google services (Gmail, Notebook, Bookmarks, etc.) worked just fine.

  • by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:04AM (#21170087) Journal
    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.
    • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:18AM (#21170243) Journal

      -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.....

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ozbird ( 127571 )
        I haven't been asked to meta-mod for ages... Did I get marked down in meta-meta-mod?
        ("Who watches the watchers?")
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

      Wow, -1 Troll? Do people even think before moderating? For those who aren't subtle enough to get it on their own, the parent post is being sarcastic.

      Edit : ha, nevermind, someone had the common sense to mod it Funny.

      Edit #2 : Oh yeah, didn't you know? Now you can edit your posts on Slashdot.

    • You have a great career in statistics ahead of you.
  • by Paeva ( 1176857 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:05AM (#21170101) Homepage
    After all, doesn't Google host more copyrighted content than any other person/company in the world? ;)
  • Gmail Notifier (Score:5, Informative)

    by hansamurai ( 907719 ) <> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:09AM (#21170139) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Re:Gmail Notifier (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ajs ( 35943 ) <> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:32AM (#21170459) Homepage Journal

      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.
    • I've been having the same problems on and off over the last couple weeks.

      Problem is, I never thought to dig into it as my connection is regularly 'comcastic' (pejorative) during peak hours.
      I'm not sure if you should consider yourself lucky or unlucky that you can actually tell the difference between their incompetence and malice.
  • by Daimanta ( 1140543 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:10AM (#21170151) Journal
    Hard. Nothing worse than a pissed off multi-billion dollar company suing your ass off. That will teach them.
  • unfair competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr_mischief ( 456295 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:13AM (#21170187) Journal
    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.

    • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:21AM (#21170293) Journal

      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.

      • by mr_mischief ( 456295 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:31AM (#21170437) Journal
        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.
        • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:43AM (#21170633) Journal

          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.

        • by bhima ( 46039 )
          Isn't all that new HD content, and Comcast's very own VOIP and, all those SD channels, and all those music channels, and all their other crap carried on the same network?

          Surely they'd rather have all that bandwidth going to paying HD content subscribers, rather than those filthy file-sharers!

          Oh and they'd like to continue to oversell capacity too, thanks!
        • by MenTaLguY ( 5483 )
          I dunno... they even block things like Lotus Notes.
        • Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like "leveraging monopoly control in a market to increase marketshare in other markets".

          That's illegal. Ask Microsoft.
      • 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 nee

  • by Luke Dawson ( 956412 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:13AM (#21170195)
    If Google were being wrongly flagged, and Google ends up suing the ass off Comcast to put an end to this bullshit.
  • Theory... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by njfuzzy ( 734116 )
    Maybe Google is including some spoofed information in their packets, to test what Comcast is filtering for (and/or to sabotage the filtering system with false positives). There was a time when it wouldn't have surprised us to see their "Don't be evil" policy extended to this kind of jab at an evil policy elsewhere.
    • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:25AM (#21170359) Homepage Journal

      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.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        " 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.
      • Far more likely (Score:3, 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.
  • Before a move a couple of years ago I had been on Comcast for several years and had numerous issues. They couldn't seem to keep a DNS system working. I wish I had known about Opendns back then. Nothing is ultimately surprising, but I find it hard to believe that Comcast's anti-p2p methods would target
    • Re: (Score:3, 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" and get the ip lookup address. The ping times out but typing the ip address into my browser works.

      I've experienced problems connec

    • by TheLink ( 130905 )
      What's so good about using opendns? They look like they're doing a variation of Verisign's Site Finder.

      How about running your own DNS server? Or get a list of DNS servers from various ISPs round the world that work and rotate through the IPs.
    • Comcast isn't targetting p2p they are targeting bandwidth "hogs", it's easy to saturate the up-stream because it's so meager on cable and bittorrent hits the ceiling pretty fast, yet they still are watching the down-stream and tons of down-stream comes from Google, everything from search to gmail with killer attachment to google groups and usenet groups with porn all gets suck down the pipes and thru the intertubes. The wife does a lot of gaming on and that has been dropping out lately on her, I'm
  • by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) <gterich AT aol DOT com> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:18AM (#21170235) Journal
    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?
    • Why wouldn't it have a valid sequence number? Don't they only need a single packet to get the proper sequence number? Wouldn't most TCP implementations throw away a sequence number that was so far off?

    • by SIGBUS ( 8236 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:32AM (#21170453) Homepage
      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).
      • by Chyeld ( 713439 )
        From what little I've read on this, the fakes are sent both ways. So while you could drop it on your end, unless the folk on the other side are doing the same you won't get much of an effect. On the other hand, everything starts with just one person.
      • iptables -N log_and_drop
        iptables -A log_and_drop -j LOG
        iptables -A log_and_drop -j DROP
        iptables -I INPUT -j log_and_drop -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -m state --state NEW,INVALID

        I'm not sure that INVALID is the same, though.

        But I am saying that iptables rules, even though they're essentially a pile of GOTOs, should still at least strive for DRY -- don't repeat yourself. I don't know if it's actually more or less efficient, but it's sure a lot more maintainable. For example, if you wanted to try his fir
    • All IDS RST/FIN injectors (the Bro IDS [] has one, the great firewall of china uses one, Sandvine uses one) get the sequence #s from the TCP packet, so the injected RST packets are in sequence.
    • by anticypher ( 48312 ) <anticypher&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:06PM (#21171953) Homepage
      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
  • by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:20AM (#21170277)
    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)
  • 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.
    • 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.

      Plug in another DNS server. May I suggest Verison, Open DNS, ScrubIT, or any of the other free DNS servers? I use ScrubIT as it is safe for work. As a bonus, most malware sites don't work. It keeps the AV software much quieter.
  • huh ? despite the fart that you were going to put has not been out, there is malpractice. explain this to us.
  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:28AM (#21170401) Homepage
    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.
    • I sometimes see this same problem both at work and at home. Neither use Comcast, so I suspect that the problem is on Google's side.

      • I use Google Maps a lot, both home and work, two different providers, and have had no problems since I moved here (NW Chicago burbs) a year ago. Neither provider is Comcast.
    • by yuna49 ( 905461 )
      Are you using the "Image Zoom" plugin on Firefox? This is known to conflict with Google maps.
      • No, this problem exists in all browsers that I have tried (IE 6, IE 7, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror). It's not a browser issue.
  • Google recently "Page Rank Slapped" a number of major sites ... maybe Comcast was one of 'em and this is how they have decided to respond ... ;-)
    • If true, I'm sure Comcast's customers think this was a great move! :-p

      Wait, they do still have customers, right?
  • time for IPSec? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mikeee ( 137160 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:41AM (#21170609)
    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.
    • by caluml ( 551744 )
      OpenVPN [] is a very good userland VPN if you don't want the kernel-patching-goodness of FreeSWAN or other IPSec implementations.
    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      IPSec is primarily intended for creating a point-to-point tunnel.

      Establishing arbitrary IPSec connections on demand to each endpoint you want to contact would be extremely difficult.

      You could, of course, tunnel to a host that was not connected to a braindead provider, but that would be extremely bandwidth inefficient - every packet you sent or received to host C when you were tunneled through host B would have to be both sent AND received by host B.
      • by IvyKing ( 732111 )

        IPSec is primarily intended for creating a point-to-point tunnel.

        No, IPSEC is primarily intended for securing internet connections, tunneling is just one way of using it.

        Establishing arbitrary IPSec connections on demand to each endpoint you want to contact would be extremely difficult.

        Unfornutely true for most cases. IIRC, the plan was to have DNS listings for host list the public key for the host which would then be used to initiate the secure connection. This would require secure connections to the DNS servers...

  • A few weeks ago I was at a house with Comcast, and none of us could reliably access Google. All other sites seemed to work. Several hours later (or perhaps the next morning) connections to Google were fine again. At the time I thought it might be a problem with Google, and that would be front page news on Slashdot, but nothing appeared, and I forgot about it.

    That mystery is solved now...

  • Comcast shenaigans (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:57AM (#21170859) Journal
    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.
    • by Shados ( 741919 )
      For that though, its something they actually advertise, powerboost. Hardly a huge conspiracy when they -advertise- they do that loud and clear =P
  • Wikipedia page (Score:5, Informative)

    by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @10:59AM (#21170897)
    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.
  • by m2943 ( 1140797 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @11:16AM (#21171189)
    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.
  • after endless problems downloading legal videos via Transmission (Mac torrent client), and after my vonage calls stopped working all together, i gave up fighting. I called qwest and found out that my download speed would max out at 1.5 because of my distance from the CO, and i didn't care.

    I got qwest up and running in 10 minutes, and i called Comcast when i got to work. I told him i was done dealing with their incompetance on cable TV (shows would start in HD, then go to SD for commercials, then never com
  • If it is Sandvine using heuristics to badly determine that google is P2P, possibly it is because of Google Web Accelerator, how the google extension pre-downloads the first result of a google search, or the network.prefetch-next setting in firefox. I have not heard anyone write about how they are configured related to those issues.
  • Q: If it is similar to the Great Firewall of China did we ever think the users were in China? A: No! Q: Why not? A: They aren't in China. Q: That's not a good reason. A: Could you phrase that in the form of a question? Q: Sure thing, Alex Trebek, can you give me a good reason? A: If they were in China they couldn't post to the board to tell us about their problems. Q: Could ComCast be in China? A: I guess that would make the Com stand for Communist and the Cast stand for Cast System.
  • by sherriw ( 794536 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:36PM (#21172435)
    *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 right now.

    *secretary visits, 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...
  • by aderusha ( 32235 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:52PM (#21172715) Homepage
    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 with a "" 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 "" 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.
  • Comcast & DNS (Score:3, Informative)

    by DieByWire ( 744043 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:42PM (#21175451)
    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.

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.