[145018] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Sun Sep 25 07:40:24 2011
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:39:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXkNS4PosmTYQ-=CCaMpZgzd3JKZhxBJMVcSfrdMuvV7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart2063406.E16QF2Lxtv
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 04:09:22 Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>=20
wrote:
> > Just an fyi for anyone who has a marketing person dreaming up a big=20
nxdomain
> > redirect business cases, the stats are actually very very poor... it=20
does
> > not make much money at all.
> > It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields...=20
meaning,
> > you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain redirects can be actually=20
served
>=20
> Not to take any position on there being a "business case" for
> NXDOMAIN redirect,
> or not but.... the percentage of NXdomain redirects that actually
> serve ads isn't too important.
> It's absolute numbers that matter, even if it's just 1% of
> NXDOMAINS by percent.
>=20
> The rest of the 99% are referred to as "noise" and aren't relevant
> for justifying or failing
> to justify.
>=20
> The important number is at what frequency the _average_ user will
> encounter the redirect
> while they are surfing. If a sufficient proportion of their users
> see the ads at a sufficient rate,
> then they will probably justify whatever cost they have for the ad=20
serving.
>=20
> When they are doing this crappy stuff like redirecting google.com DNS
> to intercept
> search requests; I have little doubt that they are able to inject
> sufficient volume of ads to
> make some sort of "business case" behind the hijacking evilness.
>=20
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> --
> -JH
I think a special mention should go to hardware vendors who adopt this=20
dreadful practice in network equipment. I recently encountered an=20
enterprise-grade WLAN router from vendor D that has the horrible habit=20
of intercepting some % of queries to its local DNS cache resolver and=20
forwarding to an affiliate Yahoo! search page, lousy with ads, under=20
vendor D's control.
This includes things like www.google.co.uk. I don't manage this device=20
and therefore have opened a ticket with those who do to get them to turn=20
the damn thing off, while in the meantime adding *.[vendor D]search.com=20
127.0.0.1 to my /etc/hosts.
I must admit to being tempted to "fault" it with something heavy in=20
order to force its replacement:-)
But if anyone from vendor-D is on the list: congratulations, you've=20
managed to invent a network device that is by definition untrustworthy,=20
and I will never buy anything from your company.
=2D-=20
The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail=20
to lists complaining about them
--nextPart2063406.E16QF2Lxtv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk5/ExUACgkQ0c69vkueJcQU9QCgkdTWq1ZCRPBR1Kc17jptiSKt
Ng8An28ub8WUhQTAq+ncfNANhGxoUApi
=9t+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart2063406.E16QF2Lxtv--
