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

RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

techaint.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#51

Post by cmeacham98 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #32
cmeacham98 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow the logic that RIPE has to acknowledge Russia's claim on Crimea as legit to do this. As far as I can tell, the following statements are true independent of who you think rightly owns Crimea: 1. RIPE is the ultimate authority over IP address assignments in Europe as recognized by the relevant governments here 2. The Crimea region became served by different ISPs than before (for whatever reason) 3. RIPE…

Well there are a couple of contradictions, though they don't imply that Russia's claim is recognized, just that Ukraine's claim is no longer recognized. For example, their accounting department is likely accepting money from companies that have no legal basis under Ukrainian law for activities in Crimea. Unless they've waived all fees.

Companies here in the US do things that are illegal all the time. That doesn't mean they don't recognize the US government.

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#52

Post by t-3 »

rascul wrote: post #50
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought IPv4 is used in order to not rebuild infrastructure from scratch.

Does infrastructure need to be rebuilt from scratch for ipv6?

No, that's the whole point of having a layered network stack.

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#53

Post by wmf »

rascul wrote: post #50
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought IPv4 is used in order to not rebuild infrastructure from scratch.

Does infrastructure need to be rebuilt from scratch for ipv6?

Not "from scratch" but there are tons of routers that either don't support IPv6 or have broken support and thus need to be replaced.

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#54

Post by bombcar »

rsj_hn wrote: post #45
bombcar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality that people don't want to admit in all these things is that the laws, etc, get pushed aside to acknowledge the "reality" in the end - might makes right and possession is 9/10ths of the law always triumphs. And those involved often know not to push things too far when it's "working" - something like "we'll let the Russians route these IPs as long as they don't crow about routing these IPs".

This reminds me of the Chinese revolution, where after the Communists took control of everything except Taiwan, many international organizations continued to insist that Taiwan was the actual representative of China, and Taiwan held the Chinese vote at the UN until 1971. So that's about 22 years of pretending. I'm no fan of either communism or the chinese revolution, but I always thought that was ridiculous, that a c…

That actually happens - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_exile is the term of art - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_diplomatic_service_in_... is an example of basically exactly that with regards to Latvia.

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#55

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

hug wrote: post #14
gbil wrote: post #2

I didn't activelly join the latest RIPE meeting a few days ago, for sure this was not raised in any voting which is a bit strange since the time between the meeting and when this situation started was more than enough for at least a basic voting. But isn't this the same topic as with all other centralized (in a way services), wouldn't the same discussion apply for DNS too ?

At the risk of sounding flippant, por que no los dos? Any valuable domains are at the same risk, but that's outside of the scope of RIPE or IANA. Fight this. Also fight that.

No post body was provided.

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#56

Post by shrubble »

tbrownaw wrote: post #38
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limit the extent to which it's a cyberwarfare or propaganda battlefield. This was already done years ago by concentrating "the internet" and limiting it to a few companies with ban-hammers ready. What once used to be many many different personal webpages, blogs, forums, chat sites (and protocols), is now basically limited to facebook (facebook, whatsapp, instagram), twitter and google (plus some outliers, such as t…

This feels more like a thing that "just happened" rather than something that was intentionally done. Blogs and such are still there, they just take an much work as they always have. And the centralized sites don't require nearly as much intentionality.

There's been a push since 1997 at least to have gatekeepers added to the Internet.

All kinds of politicians, international and national, including Hillary Clinton (senator and Secretary of State, 3rd or 4th in line to the Presidency) have been saying for 20 years they want gatekeepers.

There were laws passed that specifically enabled consolidation and centralization.

You figure that congress and the senate "just happened" to pass those laws?

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#57

Post by mormegil »

rsj_hn wrote: post #45
bombcar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality that people don't want to admit in all these things is that the laws, etc, get pushed aside to acknowledge the "reality" in the end - might makes right and possession is 9/10ths of the law always triumphs. And those involved often know not to push things too far when it's "working" - something like "we'll let the Russians route these IPs as long as they don't crow about routing these IPs".

This reminds me of the Chinese revolution, where after the Communists took control of everything except Taiwan, many international organizations continued to insist that Taiwan was the actual representative of China, and Taiwan held the Chinese vote at the UN until 1971. So that's about 22 years of pretending. I'm no fan of either communism or the chinese revolution, but I always thought that was ridiculous, that a c…

What about six years until the country gets liberated again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_government-in-e...

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#58

Post by rsj_hn »

mormegil wrote: post #57
rsj_hn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the Chinese revolution, where after the Communists took control of everything except Taiwan, many international organizations continued to insist that Taiwan was the actual representative of China, and Taiwan held the Chinese vote at the UN until 1971. So that's about 22 years of pretending. I'm no fan of either communism or the chinese revolution, but I always thought that was ridiculous, that a c…

What about six years until the country gets liberated again? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_government-in-e...

Yes, and I understand waiting until the war ends. And even waiting for a few years after. But at some point, you do need to accept realities. The Golan Heights, for example, has Israeli registries, phone numbers, etc. If, in the future, Syria recaptures it, they can make another adjustment.

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#59

Post by nobody9999 »

wmf wrote: post #53
rascul wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does infrastructure need to be rebuilt from scratch for ipv6?

Not "from scratch" but there are tons of routers that either don't support IPv6 or have broken support and thus need to be replaced.

>Not "from scratch" but there are tons of routers that either don't support IPv6 or have broken support and thus need to be replaced.

A fair point. Many older (and possibly some current) consumer routers don't support IPv6 and would obviously need to be replaced.

That said, AFAICT, all the Tier I and Tier II providers and most major ISPs routing infrastructures support IPv6. Depressingly, many of those don't offer IPv6 to their customers.

This is anecdata, but my ISP (Spectrum) doesn't offer IPv6 to me (presumably based on my location), but does offer it to other customers.

And unless (this is US-centric, I know it's different elsewhere) you have an organization of a certain size[0], and most small businesses and consumers aren't anywhere near big enough, one needs to rely on their ISP for IPv6 allocations/support.

I'd add that most modern (last 10-15 years) OS implementations have IPv6 baked in, and most routers have supported dual stack for quite some time, IPv6 should be much more widely deployed in the US.

According to Google[1], less than half their users (~41%) access their services via IPv6. That's a significant increase since 2013 or so, but I suspect much of that is because India has ~80% IPv6 utilization.

All that said, I hope IPv6 adoption increases across the world in the near to medium term, and more importantly (to me at least) that my ISP starts offering it in my area.

[0] https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv6/first_request/#end...

[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...

Re: RIPE meetings: IP addresses as spoils of war

#60

Post by moberley »

bombcar wrote: post #54
rsj_hn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the Chinese revolution, where after the Communists took control of everything except Taiwan, many international organizations continued to insist that Taiwan was the actual representative of China, and Taiwan held the Chinese vote at the UN until 1971. So that's about 22 years of pretending. I'm no fan of either communism or the chinese revolution, but I always thought that was ridiculous, that a c…

That actually happens - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_exile is the term of art - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_diplomatic_service_in_... is an example of basically exactly that with regards to Latvia.

The oldest one would probably be the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic [1] which went into exile in 1919 and unlike similar bodies from other ex-Soviet republics remained apart after 1991.

1. https://www.radabnr.org/english

Post reply on HN