nanog mailing list archives
AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.
From: jamie <j () arpa com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:48:06 -0500
All, It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites. I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites). The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is). If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated. No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit? Thanks in advance all for insight, comments, -jamie
Current thread:
- AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Joel Esler (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Seth Mattinen (Jul 26)
- Message not available
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. David Temkin (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. David Temkin (Jul 26)
- RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Tomas L. Byrnes (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Joel Esler (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Seth Mattinen (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)