Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet protocols are changing

blog.apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#41

Post by JoshTriplett »

zb3 wrote: post #39
topspin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that all of the changes described in this story will contribute to thwarting intermediaries and their agendas. HTTP/2 and its "effective" encryption requirement are proof against things like Comcast's nasty JavaScript injection[1]. QUIC has mandatory encryption all the way down; even ACKs are encrypted, obviating some of the traditional throttling techniques. And as you say TLS 1.3 and DOH further prot…

But I, as an user, want to be able to block domains, inject scripts and see what Chrome is sending to Google on my own devices (which is what Google doesn't want me to do). That's why I can't support these protocols...

You, as a user, absolutely can. An ISP or network administrator who does not control the endpoints, on the other hand, cannot, by design. That's a feature.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#42

Post by osrec »

peterwwillis wrote: post #10
jandrese wrote: post #3

> When a protocol can’t evolve because deployments ‘freeze’ its extensibility points, we say it has ossified. TCP itself is a severe example of ossification; so many middleboxes do so many things to TCP — whether it’s blocking packets with TCP options that aren’t recognized, or ‘optimizing’ congestion control. > It’s necessary to prevent ossification, to ensure that protocols can evolve to meet the needs of the Inter…

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits…

I don't understand the down votes on your comment. I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#43

Post by wmf »

sarah180 wrote: post #33
peterwwillis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits…

There's a technical reason for this. The Internet2 project spent a lot of time and effort working on things like prioritized traffic to deal with congested links. They found that it was easier and more cost effective to just add more bandwidth than it was to design and roll out protocols that would deal with a lack of bandwidth. For more info, read this: https://www.webcitation.org/5shCiXna8 A noteworthy quote: > In…

I think more bandwidth is better in every case except geostationary satellites due to their unavoidable latency. And in theory those satellites are going to be obsoleted by LEO ISPs.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#44

Post by wmf »

frut wrote: post #32
pjc50 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sell us out to big corporations by not implementing proper features in protocols like HTTP/2 so we can get tracked What are you referring to here?

Authentication mostly. The lack of which is the major reason why the majority of us are still typing passwords into boxes in the browser and send them over the Internet in contradiction to best practices. Doing away with that would potentially solve a lot of problems, like phishing, but also replace cookies. Meaning it would be much harder to track users across the Internet threatening not only the revenue of major p…

Google gave us HTTP/2 but they also gave us U2F. But they didn't give us soft U2F so everyone still uses passwords instead.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#45

Post by pfranz »

JBiserkov wrote: post #38
24gttghh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Still" seems a bit disingenuous when considering the current trajectory IPv6 adoption is on. [0] Yah it's happening slowly, but it does seem to be pushing ahead. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Offtopic, but did you notice the 3-4% spikes on Saturdays? And the dips on workdays. I assume workplaces have a lower adoption rate due to enterprise inertia. Or is there another explanation?

You're absolutely right. I've read in other articles that IPv6 jumps up on weekends. IPv6 adoption is incredibly skewed. It's much higher in things like cellular networks and in developing countries. I think the weekend jump is attributed to cellphones (not sure if I'm connecting the dots or if that's what the consensus is).

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#46

Post by hinkley »

24gttghh wrote: post #16
pfranz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your point, IPv6 has been around 20 years, the whole time we know we're running out of IPv4 addresses and adoption is still around 20%. However, the high turnover for mobile phones has allowed more aggressive changes to the networking stack. Perhaps this, in addition to IPv6, would make something like SCTP easier to adopt widely?

"Still" seems a bit disingenuous when considering the current trajectory IPv6 adoption is on. [0] Yah it's happening slowly, but it does seem to be pushing ahead. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

That graph has a couple doglegs that make it look exponential.

The last dogleg was January 2015. And since then it’s been linear (with a little stall this month) at about 5% of the Internet converting per year. That’s another 15 years to convert the rest, unless there’s a new dog leg up.

Also percentages don’t work the way humans think they do. Especially when the number of devices is constantly climbing. That may just indicate that some fraction of new hardware is ipv6 but little old hardware is being updated.

We may well have ~2 billion machines on ipv4 pretty much indefinitely, slowly being diluted by addition of new hardware.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#47

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #41
zb3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I, as an user, want to be able to block domains, inject scripts and see what Chrome is sending to Google on my own devices (which is what Google doesn't want me to do). That's why I can't support these protocols...

You, as a user, absolutely can. An ISP or network administrator who does not control the endpoints, on the other hand, cannot, by design. That's a feature.

What if I want to use my router to block telemetry domains? Or other malware sites? It’s looking like the only way forward is running my own CA to mitm all encrypted traffic.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#48

Post by JoshTriplett »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #47
JoshTriplett wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, as a user, absolutely can. An ISP or network administrator who does not control the endpoints, on the other hand, cannot, by design. That's a feature.

What if I want to use my router to block telemetry domains? Or other malware sites? It’s looking like the only way forward is running my own CA to mitm all encrypted traffic.

> It’s looking like the only way forward is running my own CA to mitm all encrypted traffic.

Correct. Middleboxes should be presumed hostile; if you control the endpoints you can install a MITM CA, but it's safer to put what you want directly on the endpoint.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#49

Post by aoeusnth1 »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #47
JoshTriplett wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, as a user, absolutely can. An ISP or network administrator who does not control the endpoints, on the other hand, cannot, by design. That's a feature.

What if I want to use my router to block telemetry domains? Or other malware sites? It’s looking like the only way forward is running my own CA to mitm all encrypted traffic.

That seems superior anyway - you could keep blocking domains even when you're on the go.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#50

Post by tptacek »

xxpor wrote: post #31
dragontamer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCTP is a superior protocol, but it isn't implemented in many routers or firewalls. As long as Comcast / Verizon routers don't support it, no one will use it. It may be built on top of IP, but TCP / UDP levels are important for NAT and such. Too few people use DMZ and other features of routers / firewalls. Its way easier to just put up with TCP / UDP issues to stay compatible with most home setups.

You can tunnel SCTP on top of UDP. Port 9899. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/48/I-D/sigtran-sctptunnel-0...

This is an improvement --- it was dumb of SCTP to try to claim a top-level IP protocol for this --- but only marginally, since lots of firewalls won't pass traffic on random UDP ports either.
Post reply on HN