4 ms·

Given my ignorance of much of these issues, I probably shouldn't be commenting (take my comment with a huge grain of salt). But the idea of depeering networks o

Given my ignorance of much of these issues, I probably shouldn't be commenting (take my comment with a huge grain of salt). But the idea of depeering networks on the Internet for misapplication of a voluntary protocol seems like the beginning of the end of a free Internet (if ever such a thing existed). If BCP38 is critical to the success of the Internet, I think rather than ranting about those not implementing it, energy would be better spent petitioning to have it made a requirement of running a peer on the Internet to begin with. Perhaps I'm off base or starting some sort of network guru flamewar. If that's the case, down vote me and I'll go away ;)

akerl_ 11y ago
To be clear: having the networks that make up the internet agree to depeer networks that don't implement a protocol is roughly the same as "making it a requirement", and the petitioning you'd need to do is "convince all the networks to agree to do it". Because the internet is "free", more or less, there isn't much in the way of enforcement of which RFCs and practices must be followed to be part of it, which is a big part of the reason that BCP38 is so underutilized today.
jsmthrowaway 11y ago
Your heart's in the right place, but the Internet is built on policies of individual networks because there is nobody to enforce. Your suggestion back to me is simply mine in different clothing, because you think someone can enforce such a global requirement. Enforcing policy like "filter or get depeered" is the only way to achieve a global requirement like you want with the way the Internet is structured. As akerl points out you need consensus, too, because such a policy could drive customers to other networks upon enforcement, which is a business disincentive to do it. It's kind of a surprising moment when you realize what the Internet is and how little structure it has aside from the protocols themselves. We are one global Internet (semi) outage away from rethinking some of this structure, and I expect one in my lifetime.
- secstate 11y ago
  Thanks for the kid-gloves reply :) I hadn't considered that there isn't really a central authority for controlling who runs a peer, aside from ICANN, but they have pretty loose reins. Funny that everyone waxes poetic about bitcoin being a revolution in anonymous and tacit network management. Meanwhile our little Internet experiment continues to be a HUGE tacit agreement to adhere to a handful of network protocols.
  - jsmthrowaway 11y ago
    If you talk to ICANN, IANA, and friends, they're very clear (and careful to reiterate, even in minor threads) that all they do is run databases that contain interesting information. All of their policy revolves around admission to and management of said databases. It's comforting to think of authorities that govern the Internet, particularly when one of those organizations even has "Authority" in the name, but the truth is that the Internet is a miracle of decentralization as you say; we as network operators on the Internet give the databases meaning and force, not ICANN or any of its subordinates. ICANN has power because we have chosen their databases as the root of said power. Even the fact that 'news.ycombinator.com' leads here is a de facto consensus since the Internet could, theoretically, switch roots tomorrow and completely invalidate every domain name. It won't happen, much to the chagrin of alt-root operators from the 90s and 2000s and contemporary attempts like NameCoin[0], but it can, and there is absolutely nothing ICANN could do about it. They charge admission to a well-maintained database that underpins this whole show, and that's pretty much the entirety of what they do. It's on all of us to tend to the best interests of the Internet, and way too many people with access forget that. However, with responsibility like that also comes opportunity: once you realize that it's basically all of our good faith and de facto consensus holding this thing together, the barrier to entry for you to get involved with the Internet is suddenly far lower. [0]: Oh yes, it's been tried, a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
- fanf2 11y ago
  This rethink has already happened - the BGPsec project and related routing security efforts. This was in response to many route hijack cockups and malicious netblock squatting. Hasn't got much deployment yet.

akerl_ 11y ago

To be clear: having the networks that make up the internet agree to depeer networks that don't implement a protocol is roughly the same as "making it a requirement", and the petitioning you'd need to do is "convince all the networks to agree to do it". Because the internet is "free", more or less, there isn't much in the way of enforcement of which RFCs and practices must be followed to be part of it, which is a big part of the reason that BCP38 is so underutilized today.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago

Your heart's in the right place, but the Internet is built on policies of individual networks because there is nobody to enforce. Your suggestion back to me is simply mine in different clothing, because you think someone can enforce such a global requirement. Enforcing policy like "filter or get depeered" is the only way to achieve a global requirement like you want with the way the Internet is structured. As akerl points out you need consensus, too, because such a policy could drive customers to other networks upon enforcement, which is a business disincentive to do it. It's kind of a surprising moment when you realize what the Internet is and how little structure it has aside from the protocols themselves. We are one global Internet (semi) outage away from rethinking some of this structure, and I expect one in my lifetime.

secstate 11y ago
Thanks for the kid-gloves reply :) I hadn't considered that there isn't really a central authority for controlling who runs a peer, aside from ICANN, but they have pretty loose reins. Funny that everyone waxes poetic about bitcoin being a revolution in anonymous and tacit network management. Meanwhile our little Internet experiment continues to be a HUGE tacit agreement to adhere to a handful of network protocols.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  If you talk to ICANN, IANA, and friends, they're very clear (and careful to reiterate, even in minor threads) that all they do is run databases that contain interesting information. All of their policy revolves around admission to and management of said databases. It's comforting to think of authorities that govern the Internet, particularly when one of those organizations even has "Authority" in the name, but the truth is that the Internet is a miracle of decentralization as you say; we as network operators on the Internet give the databases meaning and force, not ICANN or any of its subordinates. ICANN has power because we have chosen their databases as the root of said power. Even the fact that 'news.ycombinator.com' leads here is a de facto consensus since the Internet could, theoretically, switch roots tomorrow and completely invalidate every domain name. It won't happen, much to the chagrin of alt-root operators from the 90s and 2000s and contemporary attempts like NameCoin[0], but it can, and there is absolutely nothing ICANN could do about it. They charge admission to a well-maintained database that underpins this whole show, and that's pretty much the entirety of what they do. It's on all of us to tend to the best interests of the Internet, and way too many people with access forget that. However, with responsibility like that also comes opportunity: once you realize that it's basically all of our good faith and de facto consensus holding this thing together, the barrier to entry for you to get involved with the Internet is suddenly far lower. [0]: Oh yes, it's been tried, a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
fanf2 11y ago
This rethink has already happened - the BGPsec project and related routing security efforts. This was in response to many route hijack cockups and malicious netblock squatting. Hasn't got much deployment yet.