4 ms·

Good question and I haven't seen a response yet. This may be a serious problem for Amazon since you aren't alone in your blocking of AWS/EC2 IP ranges. If users

Good question and I haven't seen a response yet. This may be a serious problem for Amazon since you aren't alone in your blocking of AWS/EC2 IP ranges. If users use the tablet and find that the Silk browser doesn't show them all the sites they want, then people will be disappointed in Amazon. Hopefully they'll separate/segment IPs to prevent users from not using the browser.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
More likely, if AWS fails to fetch a page it will fallback on the browser to do the work. So the user will still get to the page they want, and your site will be blamed for being "slow" due to blocking AWS caching.
- ck2 15y ago
  Why would they assume local connect would work when AWS times out or notices it was never able to fetch a page? I think it will only be available via a buried setting that most users will never touch. Fire seems to discourage any kind of advanced user, it's the king of "no" Bluetooth? No HDMI? No Camera? No Microphone? No micro/SD slot? No GPS? No 3G? No Android Market? No (only amazon's market) It also brings yet another browser to worry about for website compatibility and will require simulation to test.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    > Why would they assume local connect would work when AWS times out or notices it was never able to fetch a page? Retrying upon a 400 error is normal and permitted per the spec. Why would you not retry upon a timeout?
  - jonknee 15y ago
    Why wouldn't they assume that? Amazon surely knows that some people block AWS servers (AWS customers sure know!). You also have to realize that Amazon gets the advantage of crowd sourcing--in short order they should know who's blocking what and not even have to make the original requests to be blocked.
    - qjz 15y ago
      Not only that, but what's to prevent them from caching content after the first client makes a successful direct connection? After that, they can serve the cached content quickly to other Silk users. Circumnavigating such blocks may even be one of the driving forces behind developing Silk in the first place, since it allows Amazon to access content they can't easily reach otherwise.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

More likely, if AWS fails to fetch a page it will fallback on the browser to do the work. So the user will still get to the page they want, and your site will be blamed for being "slow" due to blocking AWS caching.

ck2 15y ago
Why would they assume local connect would work when AWS times out or notices it was never able to fetch a page? I think it will only be available via a buried setting that most users will never touch. Fire seems to discourage any kind of advanced user, it's the king of "no" Bluetooth? No HDMI? No Camera? No Microphone? No micro/SD slot? No GPS? No 3G? No Android Market? No (only amazon's market) It also brings yet another browser to worry about for website compatibility and will require simulation to test.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  > Why would they assume local connect would work when AWS times out or notices it was never able to fetch a page? Retrying upon a 400 error is normal and permitted per the spec. Why would you not retry upon a timeout?
- jonknee 15y ago
  Why wouldn't they assume that? Amazon surely knows that some people block AWS servers (AWS customers sure know!). You also have to realize that Amazon gets the advantage of crowd sourcing--in short order they should know who's blocking what and not even have to make the original requests to be blocked.
  - qjz 15y ago
    Not only that, but what's to prevent them from caching content after the first client makes a successful direct connection? After that, they can serve the cached content quickly to other Silk users. Circumnavigating such blocks may even be one of the driving forces behind developing Silk in the first place, since it allows Amazon to access content they can't easily reach otherwise.