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

Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 327 posts

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#71

Post by toast0 »

londgine wrote: post #44

I'm not sure how this can be done, but remove location association from IP. It annoys me to no end that google changes the language based on my location rather than my preference (sometimes with no obvious way to fix it). It would also stop the annoying country restrictions on websites.

There's Accept-Language, except that it's not really usable. Nobody sets it, so nobody relies on it, and anyway you can't tell it useful things like 'i know these 3 languages, in preference order, but if the original content is either one, use that instead of a translation to my more preferred language'. Websites that use IP to guess which language or country site you prefer aren't great, but there's nothing great to do.

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#72

Post by londgine »

p1mrx wrote: post #55
londgine wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

starlink is the current solution that I am hoping for

Starlink raises the speed from 2/3*c to 1*c, but IP addresses are still anchored to a location... otherwise the latency would suck. You can geolocate any fast internet connection by measuring its latency to various points on Earth.

> You can geolocate any fast internet connection by measuring its latency to various points on Earth.

How would you be able to differentiate 20 degrees east of the server with 20 degrees west of the server?

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#73

Post by rlt »

mikewarot wrote: post #67

First, you have to secure all the computers. Capability Based Security for everyone. This lets us all run mobile code without danger. (No more virus or worm issues) Next, we use 128 bit IP addresses, 32 bit port and protocol numbers, and absolutely forbid NAT as a way of getting more addresses. (no ip address shortage) Next, all email has to be cryptographically signed by the sending domain using public key encryptio…

Mostly agree except instead of “prohibiting” certain things the systems we build should disincentivize them.

e.x. No need to prohibit NAT if there are more than enough IPs to go around.

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#74

Post by Koffiepoeder »

mikewarot wrote: post #67

First, you have to secure all the computers. Capability Based Security for everyone. This lets us all run mobile code without danger. (No more virus or worm issues) Next, we use 128 bit IP addresses, 32 bit port and protocol numbers, and absolutely forbid NAT as a way of getting more addresses. (no ip address shortage) Next, all email has to be cryptographically signed by the sending domain using public key encryptio…

> Next, selling internet access is strictly prohibited.

Not sure if this is attainable, someone has to draw the cables and maintain them. What do you propose, that everyone does this for themselves? I don't think we'll be seeing much fiber cable, nor internet users then. What with trans-oceanic cables? In the end someone's got to pay the bill.

I do agree however that DNS should be free and decentralized. The difficulty here would be to avoid domain hoarders. Maybe through some verification / vouching system? On the other hand that seems a lot like PGP keyservers, which also didn't turn out all too great.

All in all, difficult problems. Maybe the current system isn't all too bad after all?

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#75

Post by snowycat »

soheil wrote: post #53

I'd make it less transactional and more realtime. No http request, tcp packets instead more like old tv broadcasts where there is a continuous signal always being sent. If it was possible to have infinite radio frequencies to use. Then you could load every possible webpage of every website continuously broadcast on a different frequency. To load a page all you have to do is tune in to that frequency. You will then ge…

This would mean that in order to send something back to that server you would need to send an equally powerful radio signal that could reach back to where the server is. Its not the most convenient thing for some people to have a high power radio transmitter in their backyard.

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#76

Post by PhaseMage »

I want a network that scales to trillions (or more) of top-level nodes (rather than the ~2 million supported by IP and BGP.) I want everyone to be able to host a router.

I'd go source-routed isochronous streams, rather than address-routed asynchronous packets.

I haven't updated my blog in a few years, but I'm still working on building the above when I have the time. (IsoGrid.org)

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#77

Post by [deleted] »

crehn wrote: post #69
nickysielicki wrote: post #9

IPv6 dates back to 1997 and it really should have been adopted more urgently. IPv4 isn’t a huge issue but it sucks that so much of the internet is dependent on cloud providers because it’s the simplest way to get a public IP address. The decentralized web didn’t happen, in part, because of this. Facebook was famously started and hosted in a dorm room. But this was only possible due to the history of Harvard within th…

What about the security aspects of NAT? e.g. Isolating subnets and restricting outbound access. Seems like a useful defence-in-depth mechanism in case of misconfigured firewall rules.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#78

Post by icehawk »

crehn wrote: post #69
nickysielicki wrote: post #9

IPv6 dates back to 1997 and it really should have been adopted more urgently. IPv4 isn’t a huge issue but it sucks that so much of the internet is dependent on cloud providers because it’s the simplest way to get a public IP address. The decentralized web didn’t happen, in part, because of this. Facebook was famously started and hosted in a dorm room. But this was only possible due to the history of Harvard within th…

What about the security aspects of NAT? e.g. Isolating subnets and restricting outbound access. Seems like a useful defence-in-depth mechanism in case of misconfigured firewall rules.

There isn't any security aspect to NAT, you're relying on the fact nobody's added an upstream route back to you:

https://www.anvilsecure.com/blog/dhcp-games-with-smart-route...

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#79

Post by mikewarot »

Koffiepoeder wrote: post #74
mikewarot wrote: post #67

First, you have to secure all the computers. Capability Based Security for everyone. This lets us all run mobile code without danger. (No more virus or worm issues) Next, we use 128 bit IP addresses, 32 bit port and protocol numbers, and absolutely forbid NAT as a way of getting more addresses. (no ip address shortage) Next, all email has to be cryptographically signed by the sending domain using public key encryptio…

> Next, selling internet access is strictly prohibited. Not sure if this is attainable, someone has to draw the cables and maintain them. What do you propose, that everyone does this for themselves? I don't think we'll be seeing much fiber cable, nor internet users then. What with trans-oceanic cables? In the end someone's got to pay the bill. I do agree however that DNS should be free and decentralized. The difficul…

I edited my entry, I hope it makes sense... access is different than connection... access forces us to be consumers, connection lets us be suppliers.

Re: Ask HN: If the Internet were redesigned today, what changes would you make?

#80

Post by cookiengineer »

liveoneggs wrote: post #11

DNS is far from perfect, TLDs are stupid and always have been, the arbitrary rules for records are stupid, MX records are ridiculous, UDP size constraints on answers.. nevermind I could keep going. DNS sucks.

Also: DNS resolvers and ISPs are the reason for amplification attacks.

ISPs should simply check where the UDP traffic is coming from, and filter out packets that have a different UDP source address inside them.

This would literally make the internet DDoS free.

Post reply on HN