This just seems so fucking retarded

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1589902,00.html

So other countries are making a fuss because they want to control the internet. Can someone explain to me what this whole contraversy is about except stupid childish bullshit that doesn’t bear any impact whatsoever on internet usage? I’m just confused.

You see, for some technical reasons that will be too boring except for ubernerds, the country who controls this DNS thingy has a lot of power over the net. Currently it’s the US.

The threat is that if power over the net is not shared, some countries will develop their own networks. The internet today is a single big net that covers the whole world, but soon it’ll be a net that will cover US and their most friendly countries. Access to sites in countries who start their own networks may become tricky or impossible.

For example, each country could decide to use protocols other than IP in their machines. So, if you are in US and want to access such a site, you may need to have special extensions for your browser, you’ll be accessing it through a proxy which will make data transfer slower, laggy, or both, and don’t you even think of P2P networking. Applications that are distributted among multiple sites might not work if you can’t get compatibility among specific networks.

Also, the protocol-hostname-suffix structure (like www.sitename.com) would only be valid for some networks. If I create my own network, I could say that my structure is preffix+=sitename@country (org+=Renan’s@BRAZIL). It would be a hell, and again for each different network you might need extensions. But the real pain in the ass would be when different countries want to have sites with the same name. You could have a www.google.com in US and one in UK, and the trouble would be how you’d know which to access. Which means that you’ll need to reference which network you’re going into for each site you browse.

The U.S. was wise to take a firm stance. The EU’s threats of a shattered Internet can hardly be taken seriously: what European leader could get away with suggesting, “Let’s disconnect our nation from all the American web sites!” If China, Saudi Arabia and Iran try that sort of isolationism, they’ll just hurt themselves.

Moreover, Icann will become independent soon. What’s preferable: to allow a non-profit organization in America to manage the internet, as it always has? or to pass on that power to a United-Nations-esque council, where the Internet will no doubt become a tool for bickering nations?

It’s not like that, Wing. Rather than disconnect, they’ll start using different procedures for networking. The internet “breaking apart” means that there’ll be “sub-internets” scattered over the world. Access to a site within your area may even improve, but between two nets it may become a mess.

Imagine that you live in a city where you can call anyone from that city locally, both with normal or cell phone. Now imagine that the phone company(ies) decide to remake the phone network, and now calls from one district to another are long distance calls (even if calling costs remain the same). Add to that, your cell phone coverage has been restricted to some districts, and there are districts which can’t have direct calls between them - it takes an intermediary call to one or more districts to reach there.

That’s what internet is going to be if there’s no agreement at UN.

American internet is the best!!!11122 WOOO AMERICA

Ren and Xwing describe my thoughts exactly as to why doing so would be fucking retarded and counterproductive. Why do these people want to shoot themselves in the foot? What’s with the obsession to have control over the internet? I mean christ, I’m fairly certain that other countries and governments would abuse the internet and restrict the freedoms it presents, like China does. I don’t understand the rationale for doing it other than this being a childish irrational spat.

One somewhat plausible reason these countries give is the lack of ip addresses. US controls a strong majority of the numbers. This is a moot point when they move to ipv6. Everyone is just slow as hell moving to that, which may be another point of frusteration.

Why does this matter? Why are people making such a big deal?

Because, as you said, they’re childish and irrational.

Actually, no. Like I said, whomever controls that DNS thingy has a lot of power.

Basically, they have all the ip’s of the world. Countries and companies buy groups of ip’s for their use (the ip you use is one your ISP bought so it could “rent” it to you), but these haven’t been coming out as fast as everyody thinks they need. And then there is the whole monopoly issue (even though the company with the power is a non-profit organization), which is the major cause of this whole fuss since its beggining. They want shared control so that more people have the power to decide who gets each ip, and also to ensure that they can get ip’s faster.

Hipothetically, growth of the internet, and implementation of ipv6, would be much faster if DNS control was internationally shared. Also, US can theoretically completely cut off a whole country’s access to the internet in a matter of seconds by simply taking all the ip’s of that country down. This would be harder to do if such a thing were in the hands of UN.

However, one can argue that after control starts being shared, countries will start fucking each other in a struggle to see who gets the most ip’s to sell and use, and as for the UN and access cutting, nothing would change since UN is just US’s wife that gets beaten by the husband in a regular basis.

My opinion is that DNs control should be given to an international organization, but one that has more to do with keeping computing standards rather than one strongly attached to a small group of countries, or that exists solely for political purposes.

4,294,967,296 possible IPs.
As of July 1, 2005 there are an estimated 6,451,058,790 people in the world.
At a fair estimate of 3 people per family, 1 computer per family, that’s 2,150,358,370 household IPs. Since most corporations have about (I’m definitely not certain on this, someone verify it) at most, probably, 5 IPs to their name, since most likely they have a central hub/network of hubs and switches that has(have) its(their) own centralized DNS, giving each computer in the network its own 192.168.x.x IP that’s specific only to that one hub/router/DNS (or, at the very least, another IP that’s similar to that format). This is common, obviously, with all routers. That still leaves around 500 million IPs to be used, giving very generous room for corporations and other businesses with in-house DNS/Routing.
I don’t see how this is a problem, though I could be wrong.

I think This picture say’s all I’ve got to say:

(It’s Chancellor of the Exchequer - Gordon Brown, UK Main Money man)

You can read more about it here and here.

I am by no means an expert on this, but I believe there are huge ranges that are sectioned off like for universities and big businesses in the US so even if they aren’t in use anyone can’t register to use them. That one article says there are was about 1 billion left and that was in 2003. As fast as things on the internet grows it’s probably a good deal less than that now. As China and India get more high-tech those ips will be sucked up in no time.

Using private networks like the 192.168 domains and NAT routing for others is something places are being forced to do, but as Ren said that adds another hop/routing computation producing slightly more lag. Plus there are more complications with connecting through routing tables as anyone trying to host games behind a router has found out. It is nothing serious, but it is a problem.

There are many many ranges cordoned off for certain things, which is why i took almost 3 billion more IP addresses just for those.
That still leaves 500 million at LEAST left over.

I believe UN controlling the internet (…) needs only three words: New World Order.

>.>
<.<

I just think that Gordon Brown just wants the net as he comes in to Power as Prime Minster.

(Brown is cited as the next Labour Leader which Blair is currently.)

It’s merely a threat. It won’t come to more.

Even if there are 500 million available IP’s, remember that they’re bought in blocks. You can’t just pick one for yourself and expect the world to have enough for 499,999,999 people. You pick one, and a few dozens of millions of people will be IP’less.

This is due to technical issues. When you give someone IP’s, you’re giving them a band to use. Let’s use a metaphor to understand it: your phone. You only use around 10% of the frequencies your line supports to send and receive voice data (DSL modems don’t make your line busy because they take the remaining 90%, but with 56K modems you use the same range for voice & internet). So you could theorically pull the cable that connects your house to the phone company, peel it off, slice it in ten smaller cables, cover them with insulant tape and connect 10 telephone devices to it.

Would it be practical? Hell no. Would it work? It would be a hasle to make it functional, and all the data would be going to and from the same number. If you wanted to assing a different phone number to each device, you’d have to change the equipment of the phone company, which is already something pretty big.

It’s not exactly the same thing with IP’s, but the principle is close to that.

Where I live, some ISP’s offer packages of internet access like this: they put a machine in a building and every apartment may connect to it through a LAN. This way everybody shares the same IP. It’s a big hasle to do some security related stuff like this - in some places we say that a building is too small for more than one ‘digital security pro’/‘hacker’, and hosting a site in such a condition is a pain in the ass. Now, you can connect to that same machine while having a different IP, one that will be used solely by you, but usually that costs twice to three times the cost of the shared IP plan.

Either they’re actually WILLING to shoot themselves in the foot for more control of the Internet or they’re making a completely idle threat in hopes that we’d kneel for them. Either way it won’t amount to a thing.

Meh, they’re politicians. They don’t have to actually know how the world works. Nul, isn’t it technically illegal to browse the internet where you are?