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

Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 227 posts

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#201

Post by [deleted] »

Chu4eeno wrote: post #198
mahouk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the transformer inventors will ever get a Turing (honestly proving to be one of the most transformative - no pun intended - technologies of the millennium so far). I know pretty much all of them left Google but they'd still be counted as alumni.

Google's transformer paper was largely just stripping out parts of an earlier (now apparently largely forgotten) paper/model and running it on Google scale compute and data (which the original researchers obviously couldn't afford).

[deleted]

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#202

Post by ocdtrekkie »

protocolture wrote: post #175
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say there's a huge difference between taking a paycheck from Google because you need it to feed your family, and specifically carving out a role in promoting Google's agenda for two decades. Even in this puff piece about him, he is quoted promoting the agentic era of the Internet. (In other news, I recently read about a city that tried to hide that a third of it's water supply was getting used by a Google dat…

> I recently read about a city that tried to hide that a third of it's water supply was getting used by a Google datacenter. I don't get why its suddenly fashionable to hate datacenters? Did a lot of people really think that their code was running in an actual cloud?

Well I try to avoid running things on the cloud myself, but bear in mind the example here:

Every major datacenter operator has abandoned their carbon neutral pledge since the AI race began, and have claimed disclosure of the public about their water usage is a trade secret to hide the damage from the public. In many cases these datacenters have been built near threatened bodies of water, but they are getting priority access to freshwater before and above residents. The same often happens with electricity, where a significant demand is placed on local infrastructure and taxpayers bear the cost of needed upgrades to the system.

The problem is that these are trillionaire companies because they are subsidized by dozens of taxes on ordinary people. Every transaction we make pays Google in one way or another. Every app we buy pays Google 30%. Every business we patronize is spending like 10% of their operating budget with Google. Our tax dollars are funding their datacenters.

Why is it finally fashionable to hate datacenters? People are finally realizing the costs!

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#203

Post by mghackerlady »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #181
cyclopeanutopia wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ethics are you talking about?

I think it's a fair question It would be interesting to know what Cerf, Thompson, etc. saw in Google. Why was it more appealing than, for example, academia The ethics question might be something like: Is advertising really the highest and best use for a public computer network; does it justify using the network for data collection and mass surveillance

I think, in many ways, google is the only real successor to the research labs (Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, etc.) of the 20th century. If they had somewhere else to go, I don't doubt they'd go there

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#204

Post by Sesse__ »

throw0101d wrote: post #200
bigcityslider wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6to4 or NAT64 isn't the same thing as what all those IPv4+/5/7/8 people want, if that's what you were referring to. You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky.

> You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky. 6to4 is exactly ownership: > For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16. > For example, the global IPv4 addres…

> There's no way around it: a non-IPng-having node will have to go through a translation box of some kind.

Yes. Note that it doesn't need to be someone else's relay; anyone with IPv4 connectivity could easily route 2002::/16 into IPv4-land (without having to announce it in BGP for others to use). You could even announce 2002:aabb:ccdd::/48 as a more-specific in BGP if you wanted, although this was more exotic.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#205

Post by bigcityslider »

throw0101d wrote: post #200
bigcityslider wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6to4 or NAT64 isn't the same thing as what all those IPv4+/5/7/8 people want, if that's what you were referring to. You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky.

> You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky. 6to4 is exactly ownership: > For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16. > For example, the global IPv4 addres…

If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address. I want another ipv6 host to be able to send dst=1.2.3.4 and have it go directly to my ipv6 host. 6to4 isn't comparable to that, it's for translation to/from v4 like you said.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#207

Post by throw0101d »

bigcityslider wrote: post #205
throw0101d wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky. 6to4 is exactly ownership: > For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16. > For example, the global IPv4 addres…

If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address. I want another ipv6 host to be able to send dst=1.2.3.4 and have it go directly to my ipv6 host. 6to4 isn't comparable to that, it's for translation to/from v4 like you said.

> If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address.

::ffff:1.2.3.4

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresse...

By having 1.2.3.4 you also got 2002:1.2.3.4::/48 'for free' (per 6to4). So if you want to send things to 1.2.3.4 / ::ffff:1.2.3.4, you tell your router that it's available via 2002:1.2.3.4::/48.

Any idea that you think is clever and to 'just' do X and/or Y for IPng, and would work, has probably already been thought of and attempted in the last 20-30.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#209

Post by subsaharancoder »

He visited the Google Kenya office in Nairobi and then did a brief talk at the local tech hub, iHub, where someone asked him what his opinion was on bearing an uncanny resemblance to the architect of the matrix, I don't think he had watched the movie because the question escaped him. It's worth pointing out he was hard of hearing so may be he just didn't hear it clearly.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#210

Post by bigcityslider »

throw0101d wrote: post #207
bigcityslider wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address. I want another ipv6 host to be able to send dst=1.2.3.4 and have it go directly to my ipv6 host. 6to4 isn't comparable to that, it's for translation to/from v4 like you said.

> If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address. ::ffff:1.2.3.4 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresse... By having 1.2.3.4 you also got 2002:1.2.3.4::/48 'for free' (per 6to4). So if you want to send things to 1.2.3.4 / ::ffff:1.2.3.4, you tell your router that it's available via 2002:1.2.3.4::/48. Any idea that you think is clever and to 'just'…

Having 1.2.3.4 in v4 doesn't make ::ffff:1.2.3.4 or 2002:1.2.3.4 route to me in v6. It would route to a relay that translates/resends to v4 1.2.3.4, then it reaches my router over v4. Nobody can use that address over pure v6.

There's no one clever trick to make the transition easy, the idea is to preserve the v4 address blocks in v6. That cascades down to a bunch of different decisions, some of which include keeping NAT around. They've most likely thought of that too, and turned it down because they wanted to start with a clean slate and maybe also had some other vision of pure P2P apps.

Post reply on HN