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

Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

tools.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#61

Post by ricardobeat »

wilfra wrote: post #52
kijin wrote: post #14

"Internet autonomy" = we want to have our own intranet so we can cut off the rest of the world from our population without causing technical trouble. "Unilateral action" = we're gonna do this whether you like it or not. But you know what, the Chinese already have the means to do this. Just block anything that doesn't end in ".cn", and block port 53 on all foreign DNS servers. Then what's the point of this internet dr…

If they block all but .cn they are effectively shutting down the internet. Of the top 25 sites in China, 22 use .com - and 21 of those are Chinese companies[1]. Those companies would much rather have their domain in US Jurisdiction than subject to the whims of the PRC. [1] http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/CN

They could just redirect the .com records to .cn in every DNS server in the country.

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#62

Post by marshray »

kijin wrote: post #50
bilbo0s wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just trying to be fair-minded here. We probably should have foreseen this and fixed our system earlier. I remember being at Interop back before it was cool, think industry at Gopher not Mosaic (more 'People Sometimes Need Data Processing', and not so much of the 'All'). Anyway, even then I was flabbergasted at the way networking was being implemented. The truth is, there ARE really good reasons to have a multiple DNS…

> we SHOULD have considered allocating more internet addresses to China than we allocated to, say, Stanford University. That might actually have been a good justification for China being in control of its own addressing scheme (which the draft proposes) if we didn't have IPv6. But now there is no need, since the cost of implementing a nationwide NAT (sort of) might rival, if not exceed, the cost of transitioning to I…

Don't confuse IP addresses (which are finite and especially in the early days could only be handed out it big chunks) with DNS names (which are infinite and as hierarchical and granular as necessary).

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#63

Post by marshray »

climis wrote: post #32

Perhaps we are all wrong, the authors just want the world to know what the Chinese gov is doing with DNS poisoning and what will be ended up with if we cannot stop it.

Wait ...I think I've almost gotten it decoded now ... wait ... it's a cookbook!!

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#64

Post by Volpe »

cocoflunchy wrote: post #16
sern wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposals to fragment the Internet generally do not go down well, for obvious reasons. The proposal is needlessly complicated, notwithstanding the poor quality of writing. The authors' rationale is to "realize autonomy", yet AIP suffixes are globally namespaced and still need IANA assignment, which is really no different to the current situation in relation to TLDs. It breaks backwards compatibility when applications…

The '@qq.com' part seemed more professional to me than the '644247110' part.

Phone number style email addresses are quite common in China.

I assume it's because you can't have unicode email address? (can you?) And there are only a hundred or so different names (in pinyin without tone marks)...

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#65

Post by Volpe »

icebraining wrote: post #46
dsrguru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind this was proposed by someone at a business school and two people who work at phone companies, not by government officials.

'though they are all government employees, indirectly.

No, they aren't. Working for a government owned company is not working for the government. They can have no affiliation with the CCP (which isn't possible if you work for a government department).

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#66

Post by Volpe »

toemetoch wrote: post #27
mtgx wrote: post #6

I wonder if this is just because they would like as much control over their population as possible and they want their own Internet, as they would like their own "Twitter", and own "Facebook" and so on, out of a strong sense of nationalism, or because they are worried that US wants more and more control of the Internet, and could be why they are also support getting the Internet under UN's control (among other things…

IMO it's to keep the country together. Super-large nations tend to promote separatist movements along its fringes. In the case of Russia and China they're held together with a strict regime. Other countries provide levels of autonomy on a more granular level. As a rule: monolithic = dictatorial. The moment they get true democracy in China will be the start of armed conflicts and calls for independence along the borde…

Except that in any "democratic vote" such a 'call for independence' would be voted down, as the number of Han chinese outnumber the ethnic minorities in those regions.

They've thought of that problem already.

True democracy... (Is that like a true scotsman? ... Who has a true democracy?)

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#67

Post by Volpe »

kijin wrote: post #15
ajitk wrote: post #13

From the draft: > ...network A, B and ... are AIP networks; Domain node "www.yahoo.com" in network B is expressed as "www.yahoo.com.B" for its external domain name. It mean that www.yahoo.com can co-exist in AIPs A and B. The "external domain names" will be www.yahoo.com.A abd www.yahoo.com.B. Would HTML documents be linked using local names or external names? Local only names are not going to work across APIs unless…

I don't think China would care at all. If all the links to www.yahoo.com suddenly becomes invalid by default, now the Great Firewall can do whitelisting instead of blacklisting! On the other hand, they already have access to a ".B" suffix, and it's called ".cn". For exampe, www.yahoo.com.cn.

I suspect the Great Firewall already does whitelisting rather than blacklisting.

When an external (out of china) domain is visited from within china (for the first time), it is blocked. It is then later unblocked.

I've experimented with this a few times, and it always happens like that.

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#68

Post by olalonde »

Volpe wrote: post #64
cocoflunchy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The '@qq.com' part seemed more professional to me than the '644247110' part.

Phone number style email addresses are quite common in China. I assume it's because you can't have unicode email address? (can you?) And there are only a hundred or so different names (in pinyin without tone marks)...

Also many domains follow this pattern:

https://www.4008-517-517.cn (McDonald's)

http://www.4008823823.com.cn (KFC)

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#69

Post by olalonde »

Volpe wrote: post #65
icebraining wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'though they are all government employees, indirectly.

No, they aren't. Working for a government owned company is not working for the government. They can have no affiliation with the CCP (which isn't possible if you work for a government department).

What distinction do you make between the Chinese government and the CCP? Aren't they pretty much the same thing?

Re: Chinese RFC proposes separate, independent, national internets and DNS roots

#70

Post by Volpe »

olalonde wrote: post #69
Volpe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't. Working for a government owned company is not working for the government. They can have no affiliation with the CCP (which isn't possible if you work for a government department).

What distinction do you make between the Chinese government and the CCP? Aren't they pretty much the same thing?

They are the same thing. Government owned companies are not "part of the government" like government departments are. The CEO's and directors are probably all members of the party, but labelling every employee as a party member running the party agenda is false.

There are even 'members' (large numbers) of the party who do not agree/encourage the party agenda.

Post reply on HN