[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Thank you, Comcast.

There is so much arrogance in these posts saying that these things should
be blocked because it's best or because it's negligible. The point of
having an open internet is that people are going to have use cases that you
haven't even thought of and should not be hindered. Even the reasons you
have identified--who are you to say that I can't run services for my own
use to my home? Why should I have to pay for two separate connections so
that I can have tv and internet because I require ports not being blocked
for it to function? I maintain a lab out of my home and it's on my dime to
maintain and for my personal use. Please tell me again about my need for a
business connection.


Anthony R Junk
Network and Security Engineer
(410) 929-1838
anthonyrjunk at gmail.com

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net> wrote:

> Once upon a time, Brielle Bruns <bruns at 2mbit.com> said:
> > >I'm fine with that. Residential customers shouldn't be running DNS
> > >servers anyway and as far as the outside resolvers to go, ehhhh... I
> > >see the case for OpenDNS given that you can use it to filter (though
> > >that's easily bypassed), but not really for any others.
> >
> >
> > Except that half the time people run their own DNS resolvers because
> > their provider's resolvers are
> Resolver != authoritative server.  Your local DNS resolver doesn't need
> to be (and should not be) listening to port 53 on the Internet.  Only
> DNS authoritative servers need to accept Internet traffic on port 53,
> and almost nobody needs to be running one on a typical residential
> connection (especially since residential IPs do change from time to
> time).
> --
> Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net>