Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

161–170 of 327 posts

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

#161
Protocolls (?!) ...and the idea to pump 'content' - instead of launching it?

Sounds elevating... P-:

Disclaimer: 'This position is constructed to deal with typical cases based on statistics, wich the reader may find mentioned, discribed or tendency-based elaborated.'

Sure, OT -but you may also like thinking other way about (-;

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

#162
post #153

Security. I recall a possibly apocryphal story about TCP - namely that it was originally meant to be encrypted. Supposedly it was the NSA who had gentle words with implementors which led to the spec not including any mechanisms for encrypted connections. So, encrypted by default TCP, for a start. DNS should have a much simpler, possibly TOFU model to help with the usability elements. DNSSEC is just a nightmare and co…

what would 64bit ipv4 solve that ipv6 doesnt? the migration path will still be just as painful.

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

#163
post #157

Some way to make spoofing harder. Complete cryptographic authentication and filtering of every packet is probably technically unfeasible even now. But certainly we can think of other "soft" measures.

Could that backfire? I mean, if something becomes harder to pull off, but still not hard enough to block bad actors from doing it, wouldn't we end up in a situation where strong authentication is perceived as not being "that important" because "what are the odds that somebody is spoofing the packets?"

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

#164
post #157

Some way to make spoofing harder. Complete cryptographic authentication and filtering of every packet is probably technically unfeasible even now. But certainly we can think of other "soft" measures.

Could that backfire? I mean, if something becomes harder to pull off, but still not hard enough to block bad actors from doing it, wouldn't we end up in a situation where strong authentication is perceived as not being "that important" because "what are the odds that somebody is spoofing the packets?"

Wouldn't that be still better than current situation where you can't run any public service anymore without DDoS protection? The attackers have it too easy.

I don't see how would that preclude strong authentication. We would need TLS all the same.

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

#167

Domain parking/squatting is disallowed. You’d have to make the rules in some imperfect way, but it’d be better than what we have today.

i agree but then you have the email where you might not need the web at all.

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

#168
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IPv6 reintroduces equity to the internet that facebook benefited from in it's inception Except for the fact nobody can type, much less remember any IPv6 address.

and how many people remember public ipv4 addresses besides a couple of easy to remember ipv4 addresses like 1.1.1.1 for instance? rfc1918 address space is easily remembered because people use mostly 192.168.xx.xx. but ipv6 has the same idea and when writing it shorthand isnt significantly larger.

When I worked at a company with about 5-6 servers and a couple fixed remote workstations, all the programmers knew all the IP addresses by heart, if there were names for anything but the www host I didn’t know them.

Obviously doesn’t scale, but I would assume this was normal back when you only interacted with say <10 servers.

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

#169
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to JS is not "no scripting", it's websites that only function with proprietary plugins installed. Yes and those were websites that for the most part nobody gave a crap about. The important sites weren't willing to dump so many of their viewers. Heck, even post-JS, the web didn't suck so badly until the option of shutting off JS was removed from browser UI's. Before that, enough users shut off JS tha…

I think you're underestimating the amount of sites that had flash.

Yes, even getting copy /paste functionality to allow a user to click a button to copy a piece of text needed a bit of flash.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6355300/copy-to-clipboar...

Post reply on HN