Helping to secure internet routing • Hacker News Board

Re: Helping to secure internet routing

#51

Post by superkuh » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #45

tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaddafi was not, to my knowledge, in control of any WebPKI CA=True certificates.

For what it's worth this Gaddafi -> Libya -> bit.ly connection has to be one of the weirdest beliefs you've exhibited over a long period. At first I thought it was just an extended bit, like the whole Cody Johnston "teleporting boars" thing [0] But I don't think it can be, I think you're serious and er, that's not great basically. Maybe take a few minutes to think about it more clearly, discuss it with somebody you t…

Um, okay. Who do you think I am?

Re: Helping to secure internet routing

#52

Post by p1mrx » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #40

p1mrx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a transition device nearer almost all remaining IPv4 users and that's turning their traffic into IPv6 for the long haul anyway. This is mostly impossible, because an IPv4 packet doesn't have room for an IPv6 destination. The opposite direction (NAT64) is common, but that's for IPv6 clients talking to IPv4 servers.

So, what you do goes like this: You provide DNS service, offering A answers even where (if you were to ask the public Internet) there are none. When you're asked for foo.bar.example you do an AAAA query, and you track for a while a mapping from the answer to a (RFC1918 or assigned for this purpose) IPv4 address, and recording it, then you reply to the A? query with your temporary address as the answer and a chosen ti…

You're describing NAT-PT, which the IETF moved to "historic status" in 2007: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4966

Recent developments like DNS over HTTPS make it even less viable.

Re: Helping to secure internet routing

#53

Post by redis_mlc » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #42

apple_innocent wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's unlikely it would even be laglly possible to compel them to do this." But then, at a higher level, look at the unilateral/collective censorship ("deplatforming") that is happening right now... and being carried out in part by Amazon. None of the censors have been legally compelled to take any such actions.

What you are calling "censorship" is a free market business transaction. There are many cloud services, colo facilities, etc. If Amazon chooses not to do business with you there are certainly other options. This certainly happens at the local level all the time: really toxic customers can get "fired" and banned from all the local movie theaters or all the local grocery stores. It is really no different online - some…

[dead]

Re: Helping to secure internet routing

#54

Post by tialaramex » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 6:05 AM UTC

superkuh wrote: post #51

tialaramex wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth this Gaddafi -> Libya -> bit.ly connection has to be one of the weirdest beliefs you've exhibited over a long period. At first I thought it was just an extended bit, like the whole Cody Johnston "teleporting boars" thing [0] But I don't think it can be, I think you're serious and er, that's not great basically. Maybe take a few minutes to think about it more clearly, discuss it with somebody you t…

Um, okay. Who do you think I am?

You're superkuh, but I was replying to tptacek which is to say Thomas Ptacek, who has made this very strange argument multiple times.