[18074] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: backbone transparent proxy / connection hijacking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Skinner)
Fri Jun 26 11:14:41 1998
From: Mark Skinner <mark@atmnet.net>
To: jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980625160210.723l-100000@tarkin.fdt.net> from "Jon Lewis" at Jun 25, 98 04:11:18 pm
As I don't have a direct Digex connection I can't comment on your question,
but I do want to pose this:
If Digex causes HTTP traffic to go through their proxy, are they
1. filtering content?
and
2. become responsible for all that goes through it.
I seem to recall a lawsuit about compuserve screening email or chatrooms?
anyone else think that Digex better get some really good lawyers?
my two cents,
Mark Skinner
Verio Southern California
>
> Has anyone else noticed Digex playing with transparent proxying on their
> backbone? We have one of our T1's through them, and found that all web
> traffic going out our Digex connection goes through a proxy. We've got
> customers with web sites that are broken now because they can't
> communicate with things like Cybercash, because their outgoing http
> requests are hijacked and sent through a Digex web cache.
>
> Digex wants us to register each web server out on the rest of the
> internet that hosts from our network need to talk directly to. This looks
> like the beginning of a big PITA.
>
> I wouldn't have a problem with Digex setting up some web caches and
> encouraging customers to setup their own caches and have them talk to the
> Digex ones via ICP...but caching everything without our knowledge/consent
> stinks.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or
> Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever
> Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient.
> ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
>
>
