[145045] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Mon Sep 26 10:39:27 2011
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRpGbRZoWGXnbp4nKyC5cyVeSg9UdhdSbyyEk3gPMiCBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:36:51 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2011 1:29 AM, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer@bfk.de> wrote:
>>
>> * Cameron Byrne:
>>
>> > It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields...
> meaning,
>> > you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain redirects can be actually
> served
>> > an ad page because 95%+ of nxd are printer lookups and such that canno=
t
> be
>> > served an ad page. =A0Then from that less than 5% pool, the click thro=
ugh
>> > rates are around 1%
>>
>> Is this with strict NXDOMAIN rewriting, or were existing names
>> redirected as well? =A0(AFAIK, most platforms do the latter, hijacking
>> bfk.de, for example.)
>>
>
> I have no experience with hijacking real names, which others have noted i=
s
> evil.
I'm curious, is there some belief that the use of hte nxdomain
hijacking/rewriting is actually of use to 'users' ? (I'd seen folk
claim that the revenue was super-nice, and also it's super beneficial
to users...)
I don't happen to believe either of these reasons, cameron's note
about checking for the right set of numbers before signing contracts
seems to indicate that the revenue wasn't there either...
-chris
