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

Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

radar.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 375 posts

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#311

Post by ryan_n »

themafia wrote: post #232
switchbak wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, a US invasion of Iran would undoubtedly lead to good things. And how can you say the Kurds are friends of the USA (I'm presuming you mean friends of the USA) given how many times they've been abandoned? Just take a look at what happened to Libya, sometimes removing a "bad person" will cause a far worse situation to evolve. Like literal human slavery. I will never cease to be amazed at the amnesia that arises wh…

> a US invasion of Iran would undoubtedly lead to good things. I think their neighbor would disagree. > sell a war to the people. If you have to sell the war, then you have no business conducting it.

Not sure if you read the full parent comment, but they are agreeing with you in case you didn't realize.

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#312

Post by runlaszlorun »

nfriedly wrote: post #205
null_deref wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a source for this claim?

Not the person you asked, but here's a couple of sources that back that claim: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-starlink-ukraine-gur-elon-mu... https://kyivindependent.com/nearly-half-of-usaid-starlink-te... Also, as I understand it, a big part of the reason USAID was fed "into the woodchipper" was because they were investigating SpaceX over Russian use of Starlink - see https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-enemy-usaid-was-…

Thx for posting the USAID article. The brazenness of it all is astonishing.

Thank God for the incompetence. It's like we're doing "Clown Show Mussolini".

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#313

Post by m4rtink »

some_bird wrote: post #218
Noaidi wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destroy the satellites? I mean all that have to do is screw up the trajectory of some of the satellites to cause exponential collisions...

Ah yes, Kessler's space shredder, something to be feared by all satellites! It appears that we are very close to an unstoppable runaway process of collisions in space. On one hand, nice that we prevent rich guys from running away to other planets after ruining this one. On the other hand, a lot of services require GPS, it would be chaos if that were to disappear...

Starlinks are in self cleaning orbits & are actually being moved even lower due to solar minimum & better capacity:

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/satellites/spacex-lo...

And any weaponized junk schrapnel a DiY iranian ASAP missile would deploy would be sub-orbital and would all come down in a couple minutes.

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#314

Post by m4rtink »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #37

Can't wait for a certain dictator to get a cellmate, so that our Persian and Kurdish friends can have freedom, including free unrestricted internet access. And for fellow HN users from there, here's some great stuff: https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/ https://bitchat.free/

More likely Asad will get another buddy to play Sounter Strike with - both he and Yanukovich must be bored to death by now in 2 people.

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#315

Post by [deleted] »

switchbak wrote: post #88
uyzstvqs wrote: post #37

Can't wait for a certain dictator to get a cellmate, so that our Persian and Kurdish friends can have freedom, including free unrestricted internet access. And for fellow HN users from there, here's some great stuff: https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/ https://bitchat.free/

Sure, a US invasion of Iran would undoubtedly lead to good things. And how can you say the Kurds are friends of the USA (I'm presuming you mean friends of the USA) given how many times they've been abandoned? Just take a look at what happened to Libya, sometimes removing a "bad person" will cause a far worse situation to evolve. Like literal human slavery. I will never cease to be amazed at the amnesia that arises wh…

[deleted]

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#316

Post by hdgvhicv »

protocolture wrote: post #289
falaki wrote: post #30

Fortunately, the government cannot enforce complete blackout because thousands of startlink terminals are active inside the country. They have been complaining about it [1] to no avail. Using these terminals activists and journalists continue to upload videos of demonstrations to social media which has enabled analyses that show demonstrations are very wide spread [2] and continue to grow. [1] https://www.itu.int/en/…

Where are the ground stations Iranian traffic is using? Starlink usually lacks the bandwidth to tunnel traffic very far. In most countries the ground station is in the same country. My bet is, a neighboring country, within reach of Iranian missiles. Oman and Turkey are listed but that data is old. But its not about censorship in the usual sense really. Its about preventing peer to peer communication. With less than a…

My starlink in Afghanistan downlinks in Sofia.

The problem with starlink is when the taliban turn off the intenet, if you use it to concerning (tweet, talk to news channel, post a podcast), the governemt know.

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#317

Post by protocolture »

bawolff wrote: post #300
protocolture wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the ground stations Iranian traffic is using? Starlink usually lacks the bandwidth to tunnel traffic very far. In most countries the ground station is in the same country. My bet is, a neighboring country, within reach of Iranian missiles. Oman and Turkey are listed but that data is old. But its not about censorship in the usual sense really. Its about preventing peer to peer communication. With less than a…

> Starlink usually lacks the bandwidth to tunnel traffic very far. In most countries the ground station is in the same country. My bet is, a neighboring country, within reach of Iranian missiles. Oman and Turkey are listed but that data is old. You really think iran is going to bomb turkey (a nato country) over this?

No, because they arent trying to prevent all communication with the outside world, they are trying to prevent organisation within their country. Leaving 0.1% of users online is acceptable.

Now if they actually did want to censor the internet, Suicide McBombervest or a missile or something would find that ground station. They simply dont give a shit.

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#318

Post by ks2048 »

reissbaker wrote: post #157
croes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like when the US removed Saddam? How did that wirk out? You need more of a plan than just get rid of a dictator.

It worked out poorly for America — we got stuck in a long expensive war that we got basically nothing from — but for the average Iraqi? I'd much rather be an Iraqi citizen than an Iranian one, and that wouldn't have been true in the 90s. Saddam was pretty evil — and a bad leader. Iraq's GDP per capita is 6x higher today than it was in 2002, a year before the invasion.

This is a pretty wild counter-factual. Reminds me of a report I saw about a hipster cafe existing in Baghdad 2025 as proof of success of the US invasion. What would the alternative have been? How do you factor in the loss of life? I suppose the real answer is asking Iraqis...

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#319

Post by thomassmith65 »

amir734jj wrote: post #247
FilosofumRex wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's just exactly what CIA/Mossad are asking for, too - you're in good company

You think I am CIA/Mossad for asking people not to get killed when they protest? I expected HN community to be better. Shame.

Can you blame us? We just want to protect you Persians from a constitutional monarchy /s

Re: Iran Goes Into IPv6 Blackout

#320

Post by EthanHeilman »

spacemule wrote: post #142
EthanHeilman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it is more difficult than jamming a typical radio antenna because the starlink uses a directed beam rather than a omnidirectional radio broadcast. This either requires enormous amounts of power, targeting the satellite itself with a directed radio beam, or getting between the satellite and the ground station by bouncing a signal off the ionosphere. The above is for jamming directed beams in general. It is li…

Bouncing signals off of the ionosphere is most definitely not an option here. The bandwidth of the signals that Starlink needs in order to provide service are far wider than the range of frequencies that bounce off any layer of the ionosphere. If you could get a 10GHz signal to bounce off of the F layer, you'd have a lot of very excited amateur radio operators who would start using that instead of the moon as their r…

Thanks for your comment, I know the ionosphere is used in Electronic Warfare but I didn't realize it was so limited in frequency.

Is there really is no way to reflect signals off the ionosphere out of phase so after reflecting they interfere into a higher frequency?

Post reply on HN