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

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#51

Post by srj »

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…

What about these new protocols is antagonistic towards satellite/microwave endpoints? If anything I'd think the 0-rtt support would help.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#52

Post by ohazi »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34
jjrh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure who "The powers that be" are, but anyone can propose and contribute to IETF standards. They are called "Request for Comment" for a reason.

Almost positively that answer is Google. Notice they are behind multiple of the new protocols here (HTTP/2 and QUIC), and are used as an example how bundling DOH with an existing major player can prevent blocking DNS. Google is effectively the actual determiner of Internet standards. As the article notes, Google implemented QUIC on their servers and their browsers, and therefore, 7% of Internet traffic is already QUI…

While everything you state here is correct, and is clearly of serious concern, my view is that the general public doesn't really have the capacity to fight both of these battles at once.

Right now, I'm convinced we need Google's help to make it harder for governments and ISPs to censor and prioritize.

After that, we'll deal with Google.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#54

Post by kaplun »

wojcikstefan wrote: post #53

This reads less like “Internet protocols are changing” and more like “Google is changing the Internet to their own benefit”.

Do these specific changes from Google impact negatively the community? Otherwise, IMHO good ideas, are good ideas regardless where they come from.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#55

Post by kuschku »

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #49
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can I? On Android, apps now can decide if they want to accept user-installed CAs, or not.

So if an app is hostile (say, all the Google apps), then I have no way to intercept their traffic anymore.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#56

Post by jlgaddis »

peterwwillis wrote: post #14

> For example, if Google was to deploy its public DNS service over DOH on www.google.com and a user configures their browser to use it, a network that wants (or is required) to stop it would have to effectively block all of Google (thanks to how they host their services). Which will result in all of Google being blocked by schools, businesses, and entire nations. Which, as Google is relied upon more and more, means l…

Nah, many of them can't -- won't -- block Google over this.

A huge number of them are absolutely reliant on Google, for things like (org-wide) Google Mail, Google Docs, ChromeBook deployments, and so on -- not to mention basic Google search.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#57

Post by Jedd »

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…

I work in the app / WAN optimisation space, and periodically do some work with SCPS -- I'm guessing you're referring to the tweaks around buffers / BDP, aggressiveness around error recovery and congestion response?

I think there'll be a few answers to the problem - first, it'll be slow to impact many of the kinds of users currently using Satellite, second for web apps it's either internal (so they can define transport) or external (in which case they are, or can, use a proxy and continue tcp/http over the sat links.

Later on I expect we'll get gateways (in the traditional sense) to sit near the dish ... though I also would expect that on that timeframe you'll be seeing improvements in application delivery.

Ultimately I hope - hubris, perhaps - that the underlying problem (most of our current application performance issues are because apps have been written by people that either don't understand networks, or have a very specific, narrow set of expectations) will be resolved. (Wrangling CIFS over satellite - f.e.)

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#58

Post by marcosdumay »

ohazi wrote: post #52
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost positively that answer is Google. Notice they are behind multiple of the new protocols here (HTTP/2 and QUIC), and are used as an example how bundling DOH with an existing major player can prevent blocking DNS. Google is effectively the actual determiner of Internet standards. As the article notes, Google implemented QUIC on their servers and their browsers, and therefore, 7% of Internet traffic is already QUI…

While everything you state here is correct, and is clearly of serious concern, my view is that the general public doesn't really have the capacity to fight both of these battles at once. Right now, I'm convinced we need Google's help to make it harder for governments and ISPs to censor and prioritize. After that, we'll deal with Google.

Corporations and governments are not two entities you can divide for conquering.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#59

Post by benjaminl »

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #25
benjaminl wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you will greatly relieved to hear that as of 2010 all major browsers cache content delivered over HTTPS. https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789

I assume they were referring to intermediate caching, not client side caching.

If that is the case, then the GGP is asking for something that would be a huge privacy leak.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#60

Post by gsich »

tptacek wrote: post #50
xxpor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Private ones usually do. (outgoing)
Post reply on HN