4 ms·

does the term "stealing" really apply here?

by saas_co_de 9y ago

colejohnson66 9y ago
It is a bit hyperbolic
gcb0 9y ago
yes, unless ip allocation is completely free of direct and indirect costs.
sprayk 9y ago
yes. At the very least, there are the autonomous system registration fees paid to ARIN for the prefix. CloudFlare might just be paying APNIC for the two addresses it needs, though, or in some kind of agreement. Either way, CloudFlare paid in some way to be the sole entity on the internet allowed to advertise for prefixes containing 1.0.0.1 and 1.1.1.1 over BGP to its peers.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  Well AT&T isn't advertising those prefixes to other networks though. This is more like censorship than stealing.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Yes, but without net neutrality it's perfectly legal theft.
aardvark7 9y ago
yes
darklajid 9y ago
I'd say 'abusing' is the term I'd go for - and it seems awkward for an ISP/network operator of that size to ignore the rules. If mum and dad's home network uses 1.1.1.1 because it's "cute" or whatever, that's understandable if still wrong. But why do network providers that employ lots of people that should know better do this? I cannot believe that it wasn't brought up, ever ("Hey, you know.. We should use 10.0.0.0/8 maybe?"). I gotta assume that someone in charge shrugged and said "Who cares?".
tialaramex 9y ago
The usual non-technical word that would get picked here is "hijacking". If I get on a bus home, and some nutjob with a gun to the driver's head insists it goes to Springfield instead, the bus wasn't stolen, but it was hijacked and now I don't get where I was headed. Hijacking can occur in several places in Internet infrastructure, but hijacking IP addresses is arguably the worst since there's almost nothing we can do about it. Cloudflare might have (perhaps even purposefully) struck the one thing you can do if you want to, which is put a popular but optional service on the address, and then let ordinary users scream blue murder because it doesn't work. [ Other examples of hijacking: Web browsers will fetch the path /favicon.ico from your site. Why? Because Internet Explorer did that to add "favourite icons" for web sites, so now that's all you can use it for; administrator@example.com can't just be the email address for somebody who fancied the handle "administrator". Why? Because Certificate Authorities decided that if somebody receives email sent to administrator@example.com that person must be authorised to have certificates for any name in example.com. No existing rules told them this was safe, but they did it anyway, so now you have to allow for that ]
- tialaramex 9y ago
  Oh, I should point out that "The Internet" (to the extent it's any distinct thing) also hijacks things. All ISO/ITU object identifiers used in Internet standards are under the OID 1.3.6.1, but, er, 1.3.6 belongs to the US Department of Defense, so how did the Internet get the nice compact 1.3.6.1? Turns out there's just an RFC from 1988 which says "This memo assumes that DoD will allocate a node to the Internet community", it says it assumes this will be 1.3.6.1, and of course thirty years later it would be pointless to say "No, the DoD does not allocate this node to you".
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    To be more specific, RFC 1065 states its use of the subtree that was initially held by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. The NBS transferred the subtree to DoD, which had not stated how it intended to manage it. Thus, the DoD might have chosen a different value for the last digit of the internet subtree, but that's all. This isn't really hijacking, although it does seem a bit haphazard. Considering the "official" handling of the subtree transfer, I suspect that the DoD did accept the decision after the RFC was submitted as a draft, with the RFC just not updated to reflect this. 30 years later, I don't think anyone cares about OIDs.

does the term "stealing" really apply here?

colejohnson66 9y ago

It is a bit hyperbolic

gcb0 9y ago

yes, unless ip allocation is completely free of direct and indirect costs.

sprayk 9y ago

yes. At the very least, there are the autonomous system registration fees paid to ARIN for the prefix. CloudFlare might just be paying APNIC for the two addresses it needs, though, or in some kind of agreement. Either way, CloudFlare paid in some way to be the sole entity on the internet allowed to advertise for prefixes containing 1.0.0.1 and 1.1.1.1 over BGP to its peers.

pathseeker 9y ago
Well AT&T isn't advertising those prefixes to other networks though. This is more like censorship than stealing.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Yes, but without net neutrality it's perfectly legal theft.

aardvark7 9y ago

yes

darklajid 9y ago

I'd say 'abusing' is the term I'd go for - and it seems awkward for an ISP/network operator of that size to ignore the rules. If mum and dad's home network uses 1.1.1.1 because it's "cute" or whatever, that's understandable if still wrong. But why do network providers that employ lots of people that should know better do this? I cannot believe that it wasn't brought up, ever ("Hey, you know.. We should use 10.0.0.0/8 maybe?"). I gotta assume that someone in charge shrugged and said "Who cares?".

tialaramex 9y ago

The usual non-technical word that would get picked here is "hijacking". If I get on a bus home, and some nutjob with a gun to the driver's head insists it goes to Springfield instead, the bus wasn't stolen, but it was hijacked and now I don't get where I was headed. Hijacking can occur in several places in Internet infrastructure, but hijacking IP addresses is arguably the worst since there's almost nothing we can do about it. Cloudflare might have (perhaps even purposefully) struck the one thing you can do if you want to, which is put a popular but optional service on the address, and then let ordinary users scream blue murder because it doesn't work. [ Other examples of hijacking: Web browsers will fetch the path /favicon.ico from your site. Why? Because Internet Explorer did that to add "favourite icons" for web sites, so now that's all you can use it for; administrator@example.com can't just be the email address for somebody who fancied the handle "administrator". Why? Because Certificate Authorities decided that if somebody receives email sent to administrator@example.com that person must be authorised to have certificates for any name in example.com. No existing rules told them this was safe, but they did it anyway, so now you have to allow for that ]

tialaramex 9y ago
Oh, I should point out that "The Internet" (to the extent it's any distinct thing) also hijacks things. All ISO/ITU object identifiers used in Internet standards are under the OID 1.3.6.1, but, er, 1.3.6 belongs to the US Department of Defense, so how did the Internet get the nice compact 1.3.6.1? Turns out there's just an RFC from 1988 which says "This memo assumes that DoD will allocate a node to the Internet community", it says it assumes this will be 1.3.6.1, and of course thirty years later it would be pointless to say "No, the DoD does not allocate this node to you".
- arghwhat 9y ago
  To be more specific, RFC 1065 states its use of the subtree that was initially held by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. The NBS transferred the subtree to DoD, which had not stated how it intended to manage it. Thus, the DoD might have chosen a different value for the last digit of the internet subtree, but that's all. This isn't really hijacking, although it does seem a bit haphazard. Considering the "official" handling of the subtree transfer, I suspect that the DoD did accept the decision after the RFC was submitted as a draft, with the RFC just not updated to reflect this. 30 years later, I don't think anyone cares about OIDs.