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

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#71

Post by lathiat »

ilaksh wrote: post #2

It seems that widely deploying TLS 1.3 and DOH can provide an effective technical end-around the dismantling of net neutrality. So we should be promoting and trying to deploy them as widely as possible. Of course, they can still block or throttle by IP, so the next step is to increase deployment of content-centric networking systems.

Unfortunately not really; Net Neutrality mostly focuses around the semi-bigger services who in most cases will have at least one of a dedicated AS number; dedicated IP ranges or dedicated physical network links they can limit the capacity of. Which is traditionally how the game has been played.

Think Netflix/Comcast.. no hiding what that traffic is.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#72

Post by orf »

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…

On the upside they provide real world prototyping and testing of protocols at a scale that's never before been available. Standards they submit for consideration will have had a lot of real world usage to iron out kinks and be battle tested. This is a good thing, IMO.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#73

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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.

I don't understand why people are more afraid of regional monopolies which have only a portion of one country as their scope, than of a global operation like Google.

I think it's far more important to deal with Google than hand them the keys to the kingdom while fighting smaller fish.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#74

Post by ori_b »

ilaksh wrote: post #2

It seems that widely deploying TLS 1.3 and DOH can provide an effective technical end-around the dismantling of net neutrality. So we should be promoting and trying to deploy them as widely as possible. Of course, they can still block or throttle by IP, so the next step is to increase deployment of content-centric networking systems.

> It seems that widely deploying TLS 1.3 and DOH can provide an effective technical end-around the dismantling of net neutrality.

If you don't think about it, it may seem that way. But until everyone sends all their data over tor, or some other system that obscures which IP you're trying to get to, it's still easy to filter.

There's (within epsilon of) zero motion I've seen towards obscuring IP addresses, for good reason.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#75

Post by ori_b »

kaplun wrote: post #54
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.

Yes, generally they're some combination of overly complicated technically, difficult to use without layers and layers of heavy dependencies, are poorly thought out, or solve Google-specific use cases.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#76

Post by [deleted] »

sliverstorm wrote: post #63
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…

You see the same thing in simple data consumption patterns. It's become normal for your average app to suck down tens or even hundreds of megabytes a month, even if it barely does anything. It's so normalized I figured there wasn't a whole lot I could do about it, until I noticed Nine sync'ing my Exchange inbox from scratch for something like 3MB. Then I noticed Telegram had used 3MB for a month's regular use, while…

[deleted]

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#77

Post by norin »

jlgaddis wrote: post #56
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.

What about China or the EU? They can surely block Google?

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#78

Post by pfranz »

morsch wrote: post #70
pfranz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that disingenuous? I don't think it matters what the curve looks like when it spans 10 years and ends up at 20%. There were implementations released 10 years previous to the graph's start. I wasn't implying it would never happen, just that even for something that's inevitable like IPv6, adoption is glacial.

I think disingenuous is the wrong word; but the curve does matter: 20% in 10 years indicates 100% in 50 years if the curve's a line, but it's not. I dove into the world of curve fitting (wee!) and my prediction[1] for 95% IPv6 adoption is around the year 2025: https://imgur.com/a/LyBJn (fitted to the logistic curve[2], x=0 is basically 2010, y is percent adoption) [1] Which you should completely trust because I've be…

Thanks for taking the time to do that!

Lets say 20% adoption means we're 40% of the way through the transition. The slope for IPv6 looks better and better every day, but overall it's not a great adoption story for tech that inevitably has to happen. (not to discourage or minimize the all the hard work done in getting IPv6 this far)

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#79

Post by pfranz »

hinkley wrote: post #46
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

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 ju…

Agreed. I say IPv6 is inevitable, but it's not like the IPv4 addresses will expire.

The economics going forward will be interesting. I've seen some low-end VPSes charge a lower rate for machines that are IPv6-only.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#80

Post by nfoz »

dragontamer wrote: post #8
shalabhc wrote: post #5

Another interesting protocol, perhaps underused, is SCTP. It fixes many issues with TCP, in particular it has reliable datagrams with multiplexing and avoiding head-of-line blocking. I believe QUIC is supposed to be faster at connection (re)estabishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Pr...

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.

Why do the routers involve themselves at the transport layer? Can't they just route IP packets and leave the transport alone?

Firewalls -- whose firewalls are we talking about here? If a client (say, home user) tries to initiate an SCTP connection to a server somewhere, what step will fail?

Post reply on HN