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

Avoiding Internet Centralization

mnot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#81

Post by tecleandor »

bullen wrote: post #68

They should probably add that merely adding yet another protocol centralizes things. Implementing them takes time and you need many implementations for the protocols themselves to become de-centralized. This is what breaks most new protocols and languages combined with diminishing returns (low hanging fruit has allready been harvested). Personally I'm going back to HTTP, DNS and SMTP. And even if DNS is completely ce…

> Google charges for static IP addresses on GCP which should not be a thing if they get allocations for free.

Same as in AWS (IIRC) in Google Cloud you don't get billed for static IP addresses if they are in use:

"If you reserve a static external IP address and do not assign it to a resource such as a VM instance or a forwarding rule, you are charged at a higher rate than for static and ephemeral external IP addresses that are in use.

You are not charged for static external IP addresses that are assigned to forwarding rules."

https://cloud.google.com/vpc/network-pricing

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#82

Post by bullen »

tecleandor wrote: post #81
bullen wrote: post #68

They should probably add that merely adding yet another protocol centralizes things. Implementing them takes time and you need many implementations for the protocols themselves to become de-centralized. This is what breaks most new protocols and languages combined with diminishing returns (low hanging fruit has allready been harvested). Personally I'm going back to HTTP, DNS and SMTP. And even if DNS is completely ce…

> Google charges for static IP addresses on GCP which should not be a thing if they get allocations for free. Same as in AWS (IIRC) in Google Cloud you don't get billed for static IP addresses if they are in use: "If you reserve a static external IP address and do not assign it to a resource such as a VM instance or a forwarding rule, you are charged at a higher rate than for static and ephemeral external IP addresse…

That's not true, I have 3 static IPs connected to VMs and they charge me for them:

External IP Charge on a Standard VM Usage 2021-11-01 2021-11-30 2,XXX.XXX hour 50.XXXXXSEK

So ~$2 per IP in USE per month!

>gcloud compute addresses list

ERROR: (gcloud.compute.addresses.list) Some requests did not succeed:

- Request had insufficient authentication scopes.

We need to move away from these companies before it's too late... they are incompetent and rent seeking.

They also do not rebate your free instance if you shut it off and change the instance type of the instance that had the rebate, even if you change it back.

And there is no recourse, no support, no way to get help.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#83

Post by user_named »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #67
user_named wrote: post #35

I think centralization is just a property of reality. Everything is centralized. Crypto is centralized in certain ways (mining capacity, holdings), capital is centralized to the top 0.1% in every country and so on. It is better to design systems to handle centralization than with the assumption that they will remain decentralized, which would sort of break them.

I disagree. As just one counterexample, consider the mycorrhizal fungal networks that mediate access to nutrients among trees--they've been doing their job without centralized intervention for billions of years. If it seems like everything that we build is centralized, it might just be that we're bad at building things that last.

The tree is the center.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#84

Post by meltedcapacitor »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #62
betterunix2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some perspective: in 1986 the Internet experienced a congestive collapse that reduced the useful throughput by 3 orders of magnitude. End users noticed, and if it happened today there would be pandemonium. The Internet has become so robust and reliable that end users take the network for granted. At this point most of the headline-making incidents involve services running on the Internet, not the Internet itself (at…

I love the internet as it is today (facebook and google aside) the system is reliable enough for us. But the discussion is about centralization. This is not about infrastructure. The day facebook was down for a few hours, I was asked why the internet was down. That person uses the internet for fb and whatsapp (also fb) A decentralized communication protocol and a federated social network wouldn't fail completely unde…

Facebook could also run federated technically, so that it never fails all at once. It failed because they put all the eggs in one basket in some top layer.

Technical decentralization is orthogonal to commercial issues.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#85

Post by zaik »

Arathorn wrote: post #22
gefhfff wrote: post #5

A recent example is "Message Layer Security". While Wire and Matrix are working on a decentralized version the IETF is, unfortunately, working towards one based on a central entity. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25102916 https://matrix.org/blog/2021/06/25/this-week-in-matrix-2021-...

As far as we know, the Wire version is still logically centralised, using a centralised sequencing server. On the Matrix side we’re working on fully decentralising it (as per https://matrix.uhoreg.ca/mls/ordering.html ). There’s also a cool similar project from Matthew Weidner: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3460120.3484542 It’s a bit perplexing that mnot’s draft cites XMPP as decentralised, given MUCs are very much…

XMPP is still a decentralized protocol by design. That you can't send messages to a conference hosted on a server that is offline doesn't make it 'centralized'.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#86

Post by goodpoint »

preseinger wrote: post #56
nathias wrote: post #3

> Some protocols require the introduction of centralization risk that is unavoidable by nature. For example, when there is a need a single, globally coordinated 'source of truth', that facility is by nature centralized. No, there is nothing unavoidable in making a centralized DNS system.

What? Practical addressability requires centralization by definition. How could it work otherwise?

...for an arbitrary definition of "practical".

There isn't a single world-wide authority that assigns names to people or companies, or plate numbers to cars or airplanes. It's partially federated and we accept the tradeoffs.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#87

Post by foxfluff »

xxpor wrote: post #15
foxfluff wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LE also forces you to rely on DNS, which is highly centralized..

What CA doesn't?

There are many CAs that give certs for IPs. LE won't.

Not that it's much better. IPs are still granted to you by someone in a centralized hierarchy.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#88

Post by OldTimeCoffee »

pabs3 wrote: post #42
tkojames wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just rolled out att fiber into my neighborhood. I was surprised as I live in a older neighborhood. Have overhead power lines talked with att installer and he said that was the reason we go it. Went from 1 gig down 30 mbps upload cable for 100 a month to 70 for gig full up and down and they gave me 400 bucks for signing up. It is pretty awesome having a direct fiber line to the house. My brother lives in Santa Ro…

What equipment does the fiber line plug into? Can you run your own device? Is it PON or AON fiber?

ATT Fiber is mostly GPON with some areas that are XGS-PON. They just started rolling out 2gbit and 5gbit service in one city.

There are a couple of bypass methods on the GPON network that let you use your equipment with the ONT and bypass the RG. I don't think I would bother, though, and I'd just use the 'IP Passthrough' DMZ to assign the public IP to your router. The only problem was the size of the internal connection table on the RG was historically very small and didn't clear quickly which really only causes problems if you torrent. The newer RGs don't have this problem.

On the XGS-PON network the ONT is integrated into the RG so it's not possible right now, but again the DMZ 'IP Passthrough' mode actually works well.

They support IPv6 and they give out a /56 if that matters to you.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#89

Post by immibis »

justinpombrio wrote: post #65
serverholic wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two networks are less centralized than one. Why do people think centralization is binary?

And Starlink is especially good, because it can compete with all of the cable companies at once. No one will have a monopoly anymore. Hopefully a lot of people will suddenly start getting better service, which I hear is common when competition rolls into town.

Unless Starlink becomes the new monopoly, which is worse because it's one global monopoly instead of a different monopoly per region.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#90

Post by immibis »

tjohns wrote: post #64
DarthNebo wrote: post #61

Decentralisation efforts at this point is very akin to the democratic movements from centuries ago. Governments being reluctant to entertain efforts of taking back control, most recent example being StarLink asked to stop selling in India since they aren't registered as an ISP. The whole point of satellite internet is to avoid geo-control by any government body or local ISP.

The whole point of satellite Internet is to fill in connectivity gaps where you can’t otherwise run high-speed fiber or wireless towers. It does not avoid government control. Even ignoring local legalities, at the very least it will be under the physical control of whichever country hosts the nearest ground-segment station.

There can be multiple ground stations.
Post reply on HN