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

Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#51

Post by dgregd »

ghshephard wrote: post #47
trotsky wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has ever said IP6 didn't need firewalling? That sounds insane... And where is this IP6 NAT you speak of??

All the enterprises that have deployed in RFC4193 space are using IPv6 NAT. It's been available in OpenBSD (a popular IPv6 Firewall/NAT device) for several years. If cisco hasn't deployed it yet in their ASAs, they will soon. Enterprise cannot leak their internal addresses, and, if they do, they want it to be something that nobody can make use of/route to.

Frankly speaking I'm not familiar with IPv6 NAT.

So to hide IPv6 corporate network structure it is necessary to send outside all IPv6 packets with one global address. Is this an only option?

It should be possible to hide internal network structure with some address shuffling techniques.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#52

Post by sedachv »

revelation wrote: post #6

Let me just make this very clear: you don't go from zero operating cost to multiple millions of hardware and colo space to do the very same thing, in a move so transparent that it needs security researchers to dig into your program to find out it has happened at all. I guess Skype (by extension, Microsoft) is growing interested in what people are speaking about. To get hold of that data you need to route it through y…

I think wiretapping is one of the big reasons for the rearchitecture. Skype officially claimed they could not comply with wiretapping requests because of the P2P network as late as 2008 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9963028-38.html), and Microsoft was already working on wiretapping VoIP in 2009 (http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/microsoft-patents-vo...).

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#53

Post by ghshephard »

dgregd wrote: post #51
ghshephard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the enterprises that have deployed in RFC4193 space are using IPv6 NAT. It's been available in OpenBSD (a popular IPv6 Firewall/NAT device) for several years. If cisco hasn't deployed it yet in their ASAs, they will soon. Enterprise cannot leak their internal addresses, and, if they do, they want it to be something that nobody can make use of/route to.

Frankly speaking I'm not familiar with IPv6 NAT. So to hide IPv6 corporate network structure it is necessary to send outside all IPv6 packets with one global address. Is this an only option? It should be possible to hide internal network structure with some address shuffling techniques.

IPv6 NAT (or, more precisely, PAT/NAPT) is pretty much identical to it's IPv4 ancestor. One external (globally routable) IP Address which represents the entirety of the internal IP address space. If you are on a corporate LAN, and your IPv6 address is from the RFC4193 range (it starts with "FD" e.g. FDC2:D343:1234:5678:..." ), and, you are accessing IPv6 resources outside your company, then some kind of PAT/NAT/Proxying is taking place.)

I'm sure it will be very popular.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#55

Post by excuse-me »

beagle3 wrote: post #10
revelation wrote: post #6

Let me just make this very clear: you don't go from zero operating cost to multiple millions of hardware and colo space to do the very same thing, in a move so transparent that it needs security researchers to dig into your program to find out it has happened at all. I guess Skype (by extension, Microsoft) is growing interested in what people are speaking about. To get hold of that data you need to route it through y…

That's one option. Other options: a) datacenter bandwidth is now much cheaper than it was 10 years ago, to the point that the cost saving from using p2p is not that significant anymore. (Skype did not have zero operating cost, and contrary to the article, they did operate their own supernodes - few tens to a few hundreds at least). b) Microsoft is going to change the business model, e.g. no more free calls (or, no mo…

Unless a significant number of paying users decide that they don't want their calls going through a US company with a history of security and monopoly issues.

So you should now assume that ALL your skype calls are being recorded and monitored and anything of interest to the US authorities is now available to them ?

Are you doing anything in the US that might be considered naughty - like online gambling, tax 'optimization', overly-fair use of some recorded entertainment?

Do you work in a foreign company that competes with a major US oil/aerospace/defense/financial concern?

Do you supply to any of the above?

If you wouldn't forward an email about it to the DHS should you now still talk about it on Skype?

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#56

Post by mey »

RobertKohr wrote: post #54

What alternatives to skype exist? Something that does voice, and not likely to invade my privacy.

I would recommend looking at something like Mumble http://mumble.sourceforge.net/

Assuming you are concerned about the code you run, the location you run it in, etc. Does not provide encryption to my knowledge, but VPN can solve that.

If you are looking for something more robust that can interconnect with telecom stuff, I'd suggest http://www.freeswitch.org/ or http://www.asterisk.org/

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#57

Post by furyg3 »

I wonder if this has to do with mobile.

A laptop on a broadband line can keep track of all the P2P nodes necessary to keep my contact list & chats up to date, have a 3-way video call, and top it off by routing for a few less-well connected peers nearby. Asking that of my phone is a bit much.

Skype on an iPhone + wifi is rough sailing as it is, let alone on 3G or with a less-powerful device. The behavior I see (really random incoming chats, call false-starts) seems to be more related to the P2P layer than the app itself. I almost never see that behavior on Skype desktop.

I think leaning a bit more towards client-server would be a lot more friendly for mobile devices. Hopefully they hit the right mix.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#58

Post by wetsocket »

CTop wrote: post #16

Just so I understand this: they're switching from direct P2P messages between users (like MSN), to routing the messages through their own data centers first (like Facebook)? So in theory this will prevent any messages ever getting lost en route to the recipient? I can't tell you how many messages have gone undelivered between my friends and I when we used to use MSN messenger exclusively (even happens once or twice o…

MSN relies on central servers to broker connections, just like this does. It is not going to solve the problem you describe.

True P2P, via an overlay, where you and the other person(s) have a direct connection, is fast and reliable "enough" (otherwise Skype would not have been successful), but not perfect. Nor is store-and-forward (e.g. text mesaging) perfect either. But it is "good enough" for people to use it.

If I were really concerned about "lost messages", I'd prefer a direct connection as opposed to one that goes through a third party. It just makes more sense.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#59

Post by zerostar07 »

revelation wrote: post #6

Let me just make this very clear: you don't go from zero operating cost to multiple millions of hardware and colo space to do the very same thing, in a move so transparent that it needs security researchers to dig into your program to find out it has happened at all. I guess Skype (by extension, Microsoft) is growing interested in what people are speaking about. To get hold of that data you need to route it through y…

Isn't there some encryption involved?

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#60

Post by ay »

trotsky wrote: post #41
wmf wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think again; firewalling and NAT are coming to IPv6 whether they're needed or not.

Who has ever said IP6 didn't need firewalling? That sounds insane... And where is this IP6 NAT you speak of??

addressability != accessibility

Lots of folks get this mixed up.

Anyway, arguing about NATs is a bit like arguing of vi vs emacs - it's a great pastime.

http://blog.ioshints.info/2012/04/ipv6-legends-and-myths-mor... has a good collection of opinions so I can save the bits to not write it here.

Post reply on HN