Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

5% of the Net is Unreachable

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the but-never-the-spammer-percent dept.

The Internet 198

dasheiff writes "A BBC Story says US researchers reveal that up to 5% of the internet is completely unreachable. However the most interesting part is that they reported that many of the lost net sites flare into life briefly when being used to send spam or to launch attacks on other parts of the net."

cancel ×

198 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perhaps they had ECN on? (2)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751876)

Then again, the figure would have been more like 50% in that case...

Frist Post? (-1, Flamebait)

Inthewire (521207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751878)

Kill me now

Ironic (5, Funny)

Scutter (18425) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751879)

That link appears to be unreachable from my network.

Re:Ironic (2, Funny)

homebru (57152) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751949)

That link appears to be unreachable from my network.

Right now, I can't get to BBC [bbc.co.uk] , The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] , or The Register [theregister.co.uk] .

Maybe they've shut the uk domain down for boxing day.

Re:Ironic (1)

tomcrooze (33802) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752095)

This is funny because nobody goes to my website... I guess I'm unreachable.

In related news... (5, Funny)

Brento (26177) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751881)

The article also reports that approximately 13% of network admins are unreachable. These are the same people believed to be responsible for leaving Windows NT/2000 machines serving web pages without any service packs or security patches. These admins surface from time to time when they respond to said spam.

Re:In related news... (-1, Redundant)

Inthewire (521207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751896)

...of course, it doesn't really say that and Sr. Brento is just making a funny.

Re:In related news... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752148)

Will you quit whining and stick to the original post you jackass. I swear everything on this stupid board eventually turns into M$ bashing.

Unreachable? (4, Insightful)

WinstonSmith (69165) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751884)

If it is unreachable, is it really part of the Internet?

When I turn off my router, I don't really consider my home machines part of the Internet even though they are running and connected by a physicall wire.

Re:Unreachable? (5, Insightful)

d5w (513456) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751928)

If it is unreachable, is it really part of the Internet?
Check out the Arbor Networks [arbornetworks.com] presentation [arbornetworks.com] the BBC is referring to. Their definition of "dark address spaces" is
"The range of topology accessible from one provider, but unreachable via one or more competitor networks"
So, yes, these addresses are reachable by someone, just not by everyone.

Re:Unreachable? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752159)

Yeah, but I believe the question was 'If it is unreachable, is it really part of the Internet? '. And as soon as you think about it, post a reply to the 'falling tree in the forest' question, and might want to touch on the 'chicken before egg' problem, and while you at it, we would all like to know if the Hitch Hikers Guild to the Galaxy is correct about 'the answer to life'.

Re:Unreachable? (3, Insightful)

Kirruth (544020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752013)

You can reach these "dark spaces" if you know what you are doing. The simplest way is to use an http proxy (or tracert host) in another part of the net, or just use another isp. They are not unreachable in that sense, even though the default route from where you are may not work.

Spammers or system crackers often seem to do the trick of hacking into a set of home user broadband machines, I guess using a trojan or worm, turning them into a chain of proxies, then nailing the router between the last of the proxies and the rest of the net. In this way they make their own dark space.

Re:Unreachable? (1)

Lacutis (100342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752209)

Except using an HTTP proxy won't always work due to the fact that "The Internet"(resounding boom) is not made up of merely web servers.

It's "a lot", not "alot" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752320)

Yep.

Content-free article (5, Funny)

fader (107759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751886)

Here, let me sum up for you.

Spammers hide on the 'net by playing with unsecured routers.

What worries me is that it took someone three years to figure this out...

Re:Content-free article (5, Insightful)

satch89450 (186046) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752297)

What worries me is that it took someone three years to figure this out...

I think you may have jumped to a wrong conclusion here. It didn't take three years to figure out that spammers play around with unsecured routers. It took three years to prove via experiment and measurement the extent of the problem, and to quantify the extent of the problem.

When the little boy has cried "Wolf!" often enough, the lone cry is quickly ignored. When the little boy then yells "Wolf, range 600, bearing 219" the cry takes on a bit more significance, don't you think?

If you can't measure it, it's opinion not science. (No, I can't find who said it first -- it's not original with me.)

Re:Content-free article (1)

ddillman (267710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752389)

If you can't measure it, it's opinion not science. (No, I can't find who said it first -- it's not original with me.)

The late, great Robert A. Heinlein said it, through Lazarus Long. Whether he originated it or stole it from someone else, I'm not sure.

The article mentions US military sites (5, Informative)

Inthewire (521207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751887)

...the article says those sites are "old" and "unlisted due to age" (not direct quotes)

Maybe they just, um, are delisted due to paranoia, perhaps justified?

Re:The article mentions US military sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752083)

I wonder where their basis for determining something is 'down' or not. I hope these fuckers aren't the same bastards doing a ping sweep on *.*.*.* every week.

FYI... just because a host doesn't respond to ping doesn't mean it's down.

Only 5%? (5, Funny)

at_18 (224304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751889)

That's funny, when I try to send replies to all my spam, it seems that 100% of the net is unreachable...

Re:Only 5%? (1)

awkwardone (77785) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752355)

I actually did get a reply when I dialed an 800 number listed in a spam e-mail. The man on the other side of the mail said angrily, "We did not send you that e-mail!" (*coughbullshitcough*) Then they hung up.

So maybe not 100% and possibly 99.9% is unreachable. Like the BBC, we gotta lowball it first.

Well.. not all of us are bad. (2, Informative)

d.valued (150022) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751890)

I own a site which could, for all intents and purposes could be called a 'lost site'. It's a domain which is virtually inactive (mainly because, quite frankly, I'm a lazy bastard).

Most of the time, don't give genius the credit when stupidity could do.

Now, I've been atacked by these spamholes as well. There's nothing like hijacking a DNS server.. oops..

NXDOMAIN for theregister.co.uk (2)

Bronster (13157) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751893)

Does this explain why www.theregister.co.uk is returning NXDOMAIN?

I've certainly noticed problems resolving various places from .au recently, and put it down to holidays being had by people who usually boot broken kit.

Flaky DNS service in the last few weeks (2, Interesting)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751979)

Does this explain why www.theregister.co.uk is returning NXDOMAIN?

I've certainly noticed problems resolving various places from .au recently, and put it down to holidays being had by people who usually boot broken kit.

After they switched our cable modem over to AT&T's new network from Excite, I noticed that even though they were dynamically assigning the router 5 different DNS servers on widely disparate networks, I still couldn't resolve regular sites like slashdot [slashdot.org] or CNN [cnn.com] . Just errored out.

Did Excite do some sort of large scale public service that I'm unaware of? Were they providing really top of the line DNS service and I was just too dumb to realize it?

Doesn't this sound like a country song... "Didn't know what good DNS I had, until it was gone..."

Maybe it's time I press this old windows box into service as a public DNS server. I mean, small contributions make the world go around, right? I bet I could get redhat running in an hour or less...

This just proves, an idle mind is the devil's workshop...

Re:NXDOMAIN for theregister.co.uk (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751980)

I've noticed www.theregister.co.uk has been down for awhile to.

Does anybody no what is happening?

Re:NXDOMAIN for theregister.co.uk (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752007)

do a WHOIS on internic.co.uk - the last change to the domain was made on 24th december...

Re:NXDOMAIN for theregister.co.uk (1)

archen (447353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752045)

Maybe they've been "biting the hand that feeds it" too long. =P

Re:NXDOMAIN for theregister.co.uk (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751988)

I noticed this last night, too, so I did some whois-es, and went to the website of their registrar, and it appears that their registration has lapsed or something. (Nasty Christmas surprise.)

I resisted the temptation to re-register the domain for them for $6.75 per annum, as it would probably cause too much trouble, and I have no idea what their DNS servers are, etc.

What if I am in the 5% ? (1)

ankit (70020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751894)

Okay, so what happens if I happen to be in that 5% of the net? 95% of the net is cut off for me? Is this the case, or have I made a mistake in understanding it?

Re:What if I am in the 5% ? (1)

Durrik (80651) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751936)

In some cases yes, in some cases no.

In the case of waring ISPs mentioned in the article, you'll see 95% of the net, you won't see the 5% served by the other ISP.

If you're behind a hacked router then you might see all the net you might not. Most likely you won't see anything.

There's also the case of companies that had IP addresses assigned to them, that keep them unreachable from outside. Depending on their policies you may not see the net.

And if you're on an IP address assigned to an ISP or company that ceases to operate, you'll most likely not see the other 95% of the net.

It all depends on the net, the net isn't all that deterministic. Its kind of like a living organism with a personality you have to beat with a large stick. Usually you apply the stick to your neighbours if you're using a cable modem. Or to your ISPs first tier support (who often need a good thrashing, 'No its not my computer your router isn't working').

slashdotted? (4, Funny)

mrroot (543673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751898)

5% of all internet sites unreachable?
...maybe they were slashdotted

Re:slashdotted?: Nope, I'm just keeping them safe (1)

nethole (126708) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751908)

They are with me now.
Thanks for asking

Re:slashdotted? (2)

Cramer (69040) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751946)

Perhaps they should say, "5% of the registered address space is not reachable." Where reachability is determined from inspection of the routing tables from various providers all over the globe.

I wonder if they took into account the number of address blocks allocated but not assigned and thus not, yet, announced? The last block we were assigned wasn't in the global routing table for several months. And what about NATed networks? Or people who have 50x more addresses than they need (a /24 for an office of seven computers)?

All your nets are belong to us (-1, Redundant)

nethole (126708) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751900)

I'm keeping them safe. They are with me now

Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hell (5, Funny)

el'gwato (232384) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751906)

My war on spam begins with all Spammers, but it does not end there. It will not end until every spamming group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

These spamists spam not merely to waste bandwidth, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every piece of unsolicited mail, they hope that genuine e-mailers grow fearful, retreating from cyber space and forsaking news groups. They stand against me, because I stand in their way.

I am not deceived by their pretenses to piety. I have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the spamist ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing bandwidth to serve their advertising visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded trash cans.

My response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated replies.
I should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic e-mails to ISP's, visible to News groups, and covert operations, secret even in success. I will starve spamists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from ISP to ISP, until there is no refuge or no rest. And I will pursue ISP's that provide aid or safe haven to spammers. Every ISP, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with me, or you are with the spamists.

From this day forward, any ISP that continues to harbor or support spamists will be regarded by me as a hostile regime.

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751920)

How many bong hits did it take to write that?

lol

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751952)

What are you talking about? That was George W. Bush's speech to the joint houses of Congress a few days after the September 11th attacks. He just replaced terrorists with spamists. As for how many bong hits, 13. George has a very strong constitution and requires many bong hits to get him into full terrorist ass kicking speech mode. He did an excellent job though so I say we send him weed for Christmas.

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (1)

protonman (411526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752140)

He just replaced terrorists with spamists.

These terrorists spam not merely to waste bandwidth?

Just couldn't resist :-)

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752395)

must have used babelfish ;P

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (1)

ethaz (413842) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751934)

You forget to include the vilest -ism of all, now dead for the most parts: communism.

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751972)

don't forget capatialism

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (1)

StillaCoward (223129) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752081)

lol

That shit was just too funny.... :)

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752118)

Are you aware that Dmitri (that hacker dude who Adobe were persecuting) works for a company that produces closed source spamming tools?
Yes, his company makes email address harvesting utilities used by unscrupulous spammers to harvest email addresses from public forums like this site and other weblogs, as well as anywhere else that user email addresses are visible.
By selling such a closed source program, Dmitri's company empowers people who otherwise wouldn't have the skill to capture and manipulate said email addresses.
In all the hand wringing about Dmitri's case, very people people paid notice to what kind of fellow this guy was and who he associates with.
I expect the hammer of the anti-spammers will come down on him eventually, and those who assist him in continuing to remain in business.
Sadly certain 'civil rights' organizations, i.e. the EFF seem to be supporting this guy. It's almost like supporting the rights of a child molester because they are rights the rest of us enjoy without being vile criminals.
In any event, spread the word. Dmitri is a spammer's best friend, not a selfless hacker.

Re:Spammers, may they rest in the damnation of hel (1)

awkwardone (77785) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752403)


From this day forward, any ISP that continues to harbor or support spamists will be regarded by me as a hostile regime.

The official list of state sponsors of spam includes America Online and Earthlink. Who else might we add to that?

maybe it's because (5, Funny)

mrroot (543673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751907)

at any given time, 5% of all the Windows servers out there are busy rebooting

He shoots and scores (0, Troll)

nethole (126708) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751922)

2 points for count chocula

Re:maybe it's because (1)

sapphire42 (178537) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751996)

Only 5%???? That's a little low, don't ya think ;-)

Re:maybe it's because (1)

deppe (27130) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752012)

Hey! That would mean that all internet servers are running Windows.

Oh wait, I forgot Solaris.

Re:maybe it's because (4, Funny)

NerdSlayer (300907) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752174)

at any given time, 5% of all the Windows servers out there are busy rebooting.

I think it's closer to 3%, actually. Slashdot is linking to the other 2%.

Re:maybe it's because (1)

awkwardone (77785) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752326)

Or they're just plain crashed, due to poor management, viruses, DoS attacks, and other fun stuff like that. Or there could be the Great Hard Disk Failure of 2001, as my brother [implausible.net] had recently.

There are definitely some sites out there that have disappeared, never to be seen again. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either...

Sites behind NAT (3, Insightful)

category9 (521982) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751910)

I'd wager a great deal more than 5% is inaccessible if you count all the home sites locked away behind nat firewalls. Once we all start getting hundreds of IPv6 addresses at home, we'll start to see hundreds more small home/user sites popping up. This could greatly change the structure of the net, once again breaking away from the central information resources we are beggining to solely rely on and start using small independent resources much more.

Re:Sites behind NAT (2, Insightful)

madcoder47 (541409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751963)

IPv6 is going to take forever to implement! The whole net infrastructure is IPv4, and to upgrade software, NICs, Routers, Firmware-of-net-devices and the like will cost fortunes and be a lengthy switch. sure I'd love to see the day when we all can have 100s of IPs, but i dont think it will happen soon.

Re:Sites behind NAT (2, Interesting)

category9 (521982) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752261)

I think the evolution of IPv6 will take place in new networks, for example 3G mobile nets. Over time this new networks will take over the old ones, and one by one IPv6 nets will become obselete and switched off. I'll agree that a large number of networks will convert from v4 to v6, for example academic networks, but most will just fade into the past. Perhaps one day the v4 internet will become a cult network once again ruled by the hackers that invented it.

Re:Sites behind NAT (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752305)

I agree that it will take forever to "fully" implement; however, people can and are running IPv6 systems at this very moment. I agree with you, though, switching over fully is really gonna be a pain. Actually, I was thinking about setting up IPv6 today...

Re:Sites behind NAT (1)

MessiahXI (48280) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752105)

I'd wager a great deal more than 5% is inaccessible if you count all the home sites locked away behind nat firewalls. Once we all start getting hundreds of IPv6 addresses at home, we'll start to see hundreds more small home/user sites popping up. This could greatly change the structure of the net, once again breaking away from the central information resources we are beggining to solely rely on and start using small independent resources much more.

I don't think that being behind a NAT device constitutes being "unreachable". granted, you're reachability is governed by policies with NAT, but that's an administrative matter, not a Layer3 (IP) reachability issue.

Hijacked IP-Blocks (1, Interesting)

twstdr00t (78288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751912)

Couldn't this be part of the IP-blocks that just appear and disappear mostly for sending spam?

Route Distribution (2, Informative)

madcoder47 (541409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751926)

a split could become a serious threat to the internet as it expands. With ISPs choosing higher capacity lines in order to keep their customers happy, the companies with the fattest pipes will get all the connections. If the routers that control the traffic on these high bandwidth lines get overloaded or hacked, there is a potential for the internet to split apart.

A different theory (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751939)

If 5% is unreachable then it's not part of the net. So, at all times 100% is reachable, the net is just variable in size.

I've run into sites which are up or down and often they're in a small shop and they actually power down their server (or it happens with a power/service outage) Lots of broken links on images. It would be interesting to see a statistic on how many pages which are technically non-functional still exist, i.e. with parts unable to display due to broken links, from sites gone away or pages moved but links not updated (which even M$N does from time to time)

Re:A different theory (1)

TheCrunch (179188) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751984)

It would be interesting to see a statistic on how many pages which are technically non-functional still exist...

I'll have a guess. Ooh, 99%?

Re:A different theory (1)

awkwardone (77785) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752334)

I'd say a great majority of sites are non-functional. Most of the GeoCities "look at my pretty dog" variety of sites serve no purpose. Fourteen year-old personal profile pages on AOL Hometown [aol.com] are pretty useless.

So a lot of the Web is non-functional. Mainly because there's so much crap out there.

And the remaining 95 percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751940)

The blinkenlights are on but nobody's home.

Pardon? (4, Informative)

justinstreufert (459931) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751947)

This instantly strikes me as sort of dumb. Unreachable? By whom? In what way? What were the methods? Are you talking about IP addresses or domain names? Did you take into account:
  • Unallocated IP blocks
  • Unused allocated blocks that are being sat on by their owners
  • Dialup, DSL and Cable-modem users
  • Sites that are down
  • Sites that do not accept ICMP (or whatever protocol they used)
  • Desktop computers that people turn off
  • Firewalls that pretend they don't exist

The problem with lost peering agreements between ISPs causing partial 'net outages is well-understood. So what exactly have they measured here?! Seems like a shaky story to get one's name in the news.


Justin

Re:Pardon? (1)

pabl0 (228298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752412)

I have the (mis)fortune to work with a very large-scale WAN project, around 8,000 nodes, connected via low-cap circuits.

At any given time, between 0.75% - 1.5% of those nodes are out of service due to what I would describe as routine circumstances (power outages, circuit flaps, etc.).

That percentage is for a network that is monitored 24x7. Although some Internet firms invest in this sort of continuous monitoring, a great deal do not. Consequently, I think it's safe to assume that the percentage of nodes unreachable due to "routine" circumstances could be substantially higher than my baseline above.

If the "5%" figure is accurate, it's quite possible that it's simply the results of completely normal occurrences. I don't really follow the logic of the article in assuming that spammers and hackers are the most likely cause.

On another note: During casual surfing, one is likely to notice about one out of every ten to twenty random sites is either down or misconfigured. One wonders if the research conducted might have been casual surfing coupled with a pencil tally. :-)

Public addresses on Private networks (4, Funny)

ethaz (413842) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751950)

I can't tell you how often I have had customers demand public IP addresses for a private Frame Relay network with no Internet connection.



More than once, I've said "Here you are, you get an entire Class A because we think you are so great. Your adresses are 10.x.x.x"

Re:Public addresses on Private networks (1)

mmacdona86 (524915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751962)

Which is fine until they decide they do want to route to the Internet...

Re:Public addresses on Private networks (1)

dbarron (286) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752052)

And they believe that their 10.x.x.x network is a real IP address...and you have to try to explain that no...it's a unroutable and unusable address and they must either renumber everything or run some sort of address translation.

This leads to an interesting possibility (5, Informative)

Goldenhawk (242867) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751957)

... that much spam could be identified and stopped more easily by careful tracking of the routing information. The article (actually you have to follow the PDF link to get the real information, not just the executive summary) points out that much of the spam identified came from sites that were established and routed, then sent out the spam, and then shut down again immediately.

Seems to me that you could make some progress against the spam by simply refusing any email from a domain that hadn't been recognized on the net for at least several days or maybe weeks.

If you haven't followed the PDF link, there are some interesting time history graphs of various routing parameters. Worth checking out.

Re:This leads to an interesting possibility (1, Interesting)

madcoder47 (541409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751970)

either that, or contact the ISPs that control the various routers en route to the SPAM servers, and have them block certain IPs Packets from being forwarded.

Re:This leads to an interesting possibility (3)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752043)

The PDF link [arbornetworks.com] is over in the sidebar; I didn't even see it until you mentioned it.

Re:This leads to an interesting possibility (2, Insightful)

benb (100570) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752278)

> Seems to me that you could make some progress
> against the spam by simply refusing any email
> from a domain that hadn't been recognized on
> the net for at least several days or maybe weeks.

They will just add sites (unused) 2 weeks before the spam-attack, but you will hurt honest users and admins a lot, because you just tremendiously increased the time it takes to move/add sites.

You look to me like those "copy protection" guys. You are participating in a cat-and-mouse game, but don't care about hurting other people's interests for your cause, without even achieving it.

Spam protection must never hurt honest users. [eff.org]

repeated article... (5, Informative)

Raleel (30913) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751975)

actually,a BBC rehash of an article that was up a month ago

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/15/0517 23 7&mode=thread

Re:repeated article... (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751993)

actually,a BBC rehash of an article that was up a month ago
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/15/051723 7 [slashdot.org]

Be kind, everyone is still hunge over from xmas egg nog, etc.

Ho Ho Ho (-1)

SantaDaddy (250328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2751982)

Finally I can sit down and relax for awhile. Why are we worried about this anyways? MATRIX.

TCP/IP or Web Pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751983)

> up to 5% of the internet is completely unreachable

Has the definition "internet" really become "web pages registered in search engines" now?

Doh!

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751987)

It's called a Linksys, or whatever, cable/DSL router.

Put between cable/DSL "modem," plug into wall, and given that they tend to ship somewhat secured, there's your 5 percent.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/ unreachable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2751999)

Speaking of unreachable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/
What gives?

If only (4, Funny)

gila_monster (544999) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752009)

it happened to be the 5% not worth viewing.

It's obviously Wintermute (2)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752010)

I mean, how could there be any other answer?

Reminds me of George Carlin (3, Funny)

gvonk (107719) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752019)

"So when they counted the census results last year, they noticed that 1.5 to 2 percent of the population went uncounted.... How do they know that?"

Ummm.... (2, Insightful)

NiftyNews (537829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752020)

How exactly does one define any part of the net as "unreachable?" Doesn't the term "internet" imply that it is available on the network?

Seems kinda silly if you ask me. Why not declare that 59.28% of the internet is unreachable? Why not 600%? They're all equally unprovable and meaningless ;)

Huh? (0, Redundant)

ruvreve (216004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752022)

If this 5% isn't reachable then is it really on the net?

Didn't this story run already? But I guess the slogan for this site is "News for Nerds" not "Breaking News for Nerds."

Thats the @home Part of the Internet (4, Funny)

quakeaddict (94195) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752024)

Thats the @home Part of the Internet....

enough said.

Re:Thats the @home Part of the Internet (1)

thumbtack (445103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752124)

Only the ATT part, the Cox part is still working, I can attest to that fact.

Re:Thats the @home Part of the Internet (1)

awkwardone (77785) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752376)

Don't forget the AOL part of the Internet. Until the FBI stings, most of the pedophiles are "unreachable" as are the script kiddies and the 37337 WaREz D0oDz the rest of the time.

What a waste of bandwidth, anyways...

same as brain? (0)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752026)

Is that the same concept as we only use 10% of our brain?

Already posted (1)

FourDegreez (546211) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752027)

A similar article was posted [slashdot.org] here recently...

/. (1)

Mr.Ned (79679) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752047)

Wait... so 5% of the net is avalible on the Slashdot home page at any given time?

Priorities (5, Funny)

r_j_prahad (309298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752113)

The only time I worry is when 127.0.0.1 becomes unreachable.

Research paper (4, Informative)

hearingaid (216439) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752139)

It's irritating how people don't even read the BBC quick-article, but for those who actually want to know what the researchers figured out: the paper is here; [arbor.net] it's in Acrobat format, sigh.

Is "The Register" temporarily disconnected too? (-1, Offtopic)

Wills (242929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752141)


Neither The Register [theregister.co.uk] 's website nor DNS lookups on www.theregister.co.uk are working at present -- looks like it's offline.

People get paid to run "ping"? This is research? (3, Insightful)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752177)

Seriously, I could've told you that 5% of the net is unreachable at any given time. It's called "PPP Connections". This is some sort of breakthrough research?

- A.P.

How can that be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752188)

By definition, if you are not reachable, you are not part of the internet.

My part of the 5% (4, Funny)

Rasvar (35511) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752207)

is an XP box that I refuse to leave powered up when I am not using it. Nothing like a patch a day security.

The servers are all in Upstate Maine... (0)

CRM Slave (301589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752258)

Cahn't get thah from heah

Link to html version of report (3, Informative)

sh0rtie (455432) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752281)

For those that don't have access to that disgusting PDF Adobe file format, here is a link to a plain html [google.com] version.

Re:Link to html version of report (1)

sh0rtie (455432) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752298)

Except it doesnt work :p

try here [adobe.com] instead :)

Hmmm.... (2, Redundant)

jgerman (106518) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752323)

If it's unreachable, it's not part of the net. Hence the word network. Therefore no part of the net is unreachable.

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2752419)

aw, come on... read the article again please, will you?

this is not about hosts going down for the night or loosing their ppp connection, they talk about sites that are visible from point A but not from point B.

..because 5% of domains are in netsol limbo (1)

fatgraham (307614) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752382)

id imagine 5% of domains that expired months ago still exist in network solutions whording of expired domains, unresolveble, unregisterable

How unreachable? (4, Funny)

Darth RadaR (221648) | more than 12 years ago | (#2752402)

Maybe it's just the 5% of pr0n sites that they don't have passwords to?
:^)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>