3 ms·

> NAT, which is their only line of defense from everyone else messing with their precious IGMP multicast hacks so they can subsidize their TV business on your i

> NAT, which is their only line of defense from everyone else messing with their precious IGMP multicast hacks so they can subsidize their TV business on your internet bill. What are you trying to say? This is intriguing.

1oooqooq 2y ago
all tv channels are transmitted with the same technology state actors use to redirect traffic from some site to their servers. (multicast) That tech have no authentication or authorization. (IGMP, PIM-SM, whatever) it mostly consist of a switch or router on the edge NOT forwarding UDP to some class D ip, or something, past it. But all the ancillary protocols have hundreds of redirection attacks still available. All that is besides the BGP stuff everyone document by now so it's only used as a last resort. Go read a book on network security published after 2013. If you want to play with it in your home, no need to build a homelab. Your home modem probably have smaller versions of this using uPNP or PCP or something. Not really recalling the consumer version names. But on those you mostly can point ports routed to any device to any other device, started by any device in or out of the network. fun stuff. the reason i don't remember any of the details is because all the perl scripts written in 2000 or so still work just fine.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  I still don't really understand. What is the conspiracy? Concretely, what is it that I believe is "going on," what is "actually" "going on", and how does the "actually" "going on" part harm me or screw me... somehow?
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    you are on the detour thread about multicast. The original discussion was about NAT and how ISP will keep everyone needing NAT forever.
    - doctorpangloss 2y ago
      But NAT is needed because people use devices that were not designed to have a WAN interface. I was just interested in your POV, in good faith.
- rzzzt 2y ago
  NAT-PMP maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_Port_Mapping_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_Port_Mapping_Protocol
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    that's the apple-flavored-uPnP. it's on the consumer side.
- kortilla 2y ago
  None of what you talked about has anything to do with NAT. The Internet in general does not route multicast and getting public IPs in no way will get you access to any multicast networks.
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    It's all part of the same pile of incompetence. If you move anything from the pile today it all fall down.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      No it’s not. Restricting access to the general multicast space (“Internet2” and friends) is very intentionally done on completely NAT-free networks.

1oooqooq 2y ago

all tv channels are transmitted with the same technology state actors use to redirect traffic from some site to their servers. (multicast) That tech have no authentication or authorization. (IGMP, PIM-SM, whatever) it mostly consist of a switch or router on the edge NOT forwarding UDP to some class D ip, or something, past it. But all the ancillary protocols have hundreds of redirection attacks still available. All that is besides the BGP stuff everyone document by now so it's only used as a last resort. Go read a book on network security published after 2013. If you want to play with it in your home, no need to build a homelab. Your home modem probably have smaller versions of this using uPNP or PCP or something. Not really recalling the consumer version names. But on those you mostly can point ports routed to any device to any other device, started by any device in or out of the network. fun stuff. the reason i don't remember any of the details is because all the perl scripts written in 2000 or so still work just fine.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
I still don't really understand. What is the conspiracy? Concretely, what is it that I believe is "going on," what is "actually" "going on", and how does the "actually" "going on" part harm me or screw me... somehow?
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  you are on the detour thread about multicast. The original discussion was about NAT and how ISP will keep everyone needing NAT forever.
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    But NAT is needed because people use devices that were not designed to have a WAN interface. I was just interested in your POV, in good faith.
rzzzt 2y ago
NAT-PMP maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_Port_Mapping_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_Port_Mapping_Protocol
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  that's the apple-flavored-uPnP. it's on the consumer side.
kortilla 2y ago
None of what you talked about has anything to do with NAT. The Internet in general does not route multicast and getting public IPs in no way will get you access to any multicast networks.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  It's all part of the same pile of incompetence. If you move anything from the pile today it all fall down.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    No it’s not. Restricting access to the general multicast space (“Internet2” and friends) is very intentionally done on completely NAT-free networks.