Anyone else potentially see a problem in which a single organization oversees all name usage and can arbitrarily decide to break a good majority of the internet over stupid shit like this? Or are we all just fine with a single American based entity being able to decide what domains are valid and not?
I think it’s more of a historical accident that nobody really finds ideal, but there is also no good alternative solution that has a critical mass assembled behind it.
So it’s basically because of laziness or lack of effort that no one wants anything better, or even just different. And that means ICANN/IANA can just casually break countless internet domains and cause a decade of internet bitrot at the drop of a hat and no one will challenge them over it.
More like there is nothing better people can agree on. You might like SCION with it’s RAINS architecture, where the trust anchors are local to the isolation domains. This way you could build up name resolution where you only depend on the local ISPs that form the core of your isolation domain. In my team we are supporting SCION, in fact we are in the core of one ISD, but the uptake on the customer side is relatively low so far. There are two or three niches that are using SCION more, but not RAINS yet, as far as I know.
even just different
Just different is not really attractive, unless people feel like IANA is really messing things up, or the US is exerting undue influence over it. So far they seem to have avoided making that impression widely.
Who says they need to go that far? One can build alternate DNS systems without self-isolating, in fact they should. Air-gapping like you suggest is extra work and not necessary to implement new domain registration control and DNS root servers. Also it kind of defeats the point because it isn’t a stand against IANA it’s saying build your own internet, not take back the one we already have.
Also it kind of defeats the point because it isn’t a stand against IANA it’s saying build your own internet, not take back the one we already have.
The US created the internet and created IANA to manage it. You’re not talking about taking it back, you’re talking about taking it. If you want to control it you should build your own, like the US or North Korea did.
I disagree, you speak like the united states owns the internet. No one owns the internet. That also means no one actually has to follow IANA’s rules, why should they wall themselves off and build out their own air-gapped infrastructure just to circumvent problems imposed by IANA if IANA and the USA don’t actually “own” the internet. You can’t take the internet because no one owns the internet, get this shitty idea out of your head, internet doesn’t belong to anyone, it’s all of ours. That also means people, organizations, and countries (especially countries) are free to use alternate DNS systems with either partially or fully forked DNS Root servers.
If you want to control it you should build your own
Besides the self-hosted DNS servers for Pretendo, AltWFC, and a few GameSpy games (which I also host the servers for) I have no intention of actually doing this, but I am pointing out that no one has to, nor should they, go all out like you suggest if they wanted to do this. They do not need to build out separate internet like you suggest to control their own Domain name system.
The US did not “create” the internet. It was one of the contributors certainly, but what makes up the internet and several of its components is international work. Much of TCP is influenced by the french Cyclades, http was developed by a brit, ssh was created by a fin, ftp is the work of an indian.
Arpanet certainly had a lot of influence, but claiming the US created what is the internet today is incredibly wrong.
Regardless of who created the underlying tech, the internet is the result of taking ARPAnet, a US department of defense project, public. The US absolutely created the internet. There’s nothing stopping other countries from using those techs, bypassing IANA, and creating their own networks if they don’t like the US controlling the backbone of the network they created.
Let’s pretend that the US created the internet as a whole and that it wasn’t created by a joint effort from different actors around the world. That still doesn’t mean they own the internet today like you continue to imply. And consequently means that any group, organization, or country which chooses to deploy alternate DNS Root servers (forked or fully custom) on their own DNS providers is well within the right to do that without needing to build their own internet, and simply use all the non air-gapped infrastructure they have already.
Yes, Anyone Else has been seeing problems since the days of Bell up through the development and privatization of ICANN and beyond. But outrage over “a TLD is no longer delegated” is stupid shit. Where should ICANN be based and how would that influence its decision making processes?
I don’t really think ICANN should be based anywhere or really have any say, or I guess even exist at all. I’m a strong believer in a decentralized DNS system not controlled or designated by a single, all powerful entity. With how important it is and how much breaks if it gets compromised either by outside forces, or by internal corruption, it makes sense that something like this shouldn’t be so centralized and vulnerable.
How do you get to lemmy.world and every.to in a world without a common, public namespace? Should lemmy.world be registered in every country? How do SSL and trust in identity play into all this?
Anyone else potentially see a problem in which a single organization oversees all name usage and can arbitrarily decide to break a good majority of the internet over stupid shit like this? Or are we all just fine with a single American based entity being able to decide what domains are valid and not?
I think it’s more of a historical accident that nobody really finds ideal, but there is also no good alternative solution that has a critical mass assembled behind it.
It all started with Jon Postel just taking on the job of keeping track. This is an interesting topical document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2468
So it’s basically because of laziness or lack of effort that no one wants anything better, or even just different. And that means ICANN/IANA can just casually break countless internet domains and cause a decade of internet bitrot at the drop of a hat and no one will challenge them over it.
More like there is nothing better people can agree on. You might like SCION with it’s RAINS architecture, where the trust anchors are local to the isolation domains. This way you could build up name resolution where you only depend on the local ISPs that form the core of your isolation domain. In my team we are supporting SCION, in fact we are in the core of one ISD, but the uptake on the customer side is relatively low so far. There are two or three niches that are using SCION more, but not RAINS yet, as far as I know.
Just different is not really attractive, unless people feel like IANA is really messing things up, or the US is exerting undue influence over it. So far they seem to have avoided making that impression widely.
Those countries are free to build out their own tcp/ip networks and configure them however they like. North Korea did it, how hard can it be?
Who says they need to go that far? One can build alternate DNS systems without self-isolating, in fact they should. Air-gapping like you suggest is extra work and not necessary to implement new domain registration control and DNS root servers. Also it kind of defeats the point because it isn’t a stand against IANA it’s saying build your own internet, not take back the one we already have.
The US created the internet and created IANA to manage it. You’re not talking about taking it back, you’re talking about taking it. If you want to control it you should build your own, like the US or North Korea did.
I disagree, you speak like the united states owns the internet. No one owns the internet. That also means no one actually has to follow IANA’s rules, why should they wall themselves off and build out their own air-gapped infrastructure just to circumvent problems imposed by IANA if IANA and the USA don’t actually “own” the internet. You can’t take the internet because no one owns the internet, get this shitty idea out of your head, internet doesn’t belong to anyone, it’s all of ours. That also means people, organizations, and countries (especially countries) are free to use alternate DNS systems with either partially or fully forked DNS Root servers.
Besides the self-hosted DNS servers for Pretendo, AltWFC, and a few GameSpy games (which I also host the servers for) I have no intention of actually doing this, but I am pointing out that no one has to, nor should they, go all out like you suggest if they wanted to do this. They do not need to build out separate internet like you suggest to control their own Domain name system.
The US did not “create” the internet. It was one of the contributors certainly, but what makes up the internet and several of its components is international work. Much of TCP is influenced by the french Cyclades, http was developed by a brit, ssh was created by a fin, ftp is the work of an indian. Arpanet certainly had a lot of influence, but claiming the US created what is the internet today is incredibly wrong.
Regardless of who created the underlying tech, the internet is the result of taking ARPAnet, a US department of defense project, public. The US absolutely created the internet. There’s nothing stopping other countries from using those techs, bypassing IANA, and creating their own networks if they don’t like the US controlling the backbone of the network they created.
Let’s pretend that the US created the internet as a whole and that it wasn’t created by a joint effort from different actors around the world. That still doesn’t mean they own the internet today like you continue to imply. And consequently means that any group, organization, or country which chooses to deploy alternate DNS Root servers (forked or fully custom) on their own DNS providers is well within the right to do that without needing to build their own internet, and simply use all the non air-gapped infrastructure they have already.
Yes, Anyone Else has been seeing problems since the days of Bell up through the development and privatization of ICANN and beyond. But outrage over “a TLD is no longer delegated” is stupid shit. Where should ICANN be based and how would that influence its decision making processes?
I don’t really think ICANN should be based anywhere or really have any say, or I guess even exist at all. I’m a strong believer in a decentralized DNS system not controlled or designated by a single, all powerful entity. With how important it is and how much breaks if it gets compromised either by outside forces, or by internal corruption, it makes sense that something like this shouldn’t be so centralized and vulnerable.
How do you get to
lemmy.worldandevery.toin a world without a common, public namespace? Shouldlemmy.worldbe registered in every country? How do SSL and trust in identity play into all this?