Comments on: Iran's Election As Seen Through the ISPs

By: One More Time: Iran Isn’t Using Deep Packet Inspection « The SiliconANGLE

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:39:30 +0000

[...] Networks thinks that the networks were taken offline and migrated to low-capacity proxy servers. – GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham agrees, saying that “some unscrupulous equipment vendor who wants to interest the Iranian government in [...]

By: Brian H.

Brian H. — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:15:21 +0000

The following news story speaks about the U.S. providing software and other ways to keep Iranian internet users from being tracked by the government http://trending.zachshouse.org/?p=255. I really don’t know how they can do that.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:26:55 +0000

I don’t see this as a partial victory for censorship, more like a total failure. The Iranian government it trying it’s best to keep the information from leaving the country, yet it still flows. The proxy network is getting even more complex, Tor nodes are rapidly coming online. If they were using DPI then they could easily stop proxy servers allowing people to get to Twitter, but they haven’t stopped that yet.

By: More Details Emerge on Iran’s Internet Censorship « The SiliconANGLE

More Details Emerge on Iran’s Internet Censorship « The SiliconANGLE — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:55:24 +0000

[...] GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham agrees, saying that “some unscrupulous equipment vendor who wants to interest the Iranian government in [...]

By: Ric

Ric — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:55:38 +0000

I think Fazal is on the money with caveat that in a regime such as this, the human chain of command lag on such critical information contributes the remaining crawl. I have to imagine numerous sets of eyes and ears has to determine how to respond inspection results as the event unfolds.

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:37:11 +0000

Thanks, Jason. So you’re saying the slowdown is a result of the filtering rather than caused by the DCI to aid in filtering? Anyone else out there care to weigh in on this?

By: Fazal Majid

Fazal Majid — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:07:38 +0000

I would assume US and EU-based networking vendors can’t sell DPI equipment to Iran because of sanctions. Perhaps they are getting gear from Huawei (often straight rip-offs of Cisco gear), which would be a generation or more behind what Juniper et al can do..

By: Jason Lackey

Jason Lackey — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:57:55 +0000

Hi Stacey, “The assumption is that DCI dialed back the bandwidth in order to better inspect which content and packets needed to be censored.” is probably close but perhaps a little bit off and may be better expressed as “The assumption is that DCI has turned on deep packet inspection and/or various filters and this is slowing network performance”. The reason I say this is that DPI, deep packet inspection, is hard to pull off at true wire speed. The more you want to look into the packet, the more processing power you need. Many pieces of equipment, even those which claim wirespeed throughput, are (or at least used to be) wirespeed with established flows but still take a bit of a hit with each new flow established.

By: fullbodytransplant

fullbodytransplant — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:32:13 +0000

Iran seems to be already won:

http://fullbodytransplant.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/iran-is-won-it-is-only-a-matter-of-time/

Excellent news.

By: Iran’s Election As Seen Through the ISPs - Gigaom.com

Iran’s Election As Seen Through the ISPs - Gigaom.com — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:24:00 +0000

[...] Read more from the original source: Iran’s Election As Seen Through the ISPs – Gigaom.com [...]