Subject: decentralization of Internet (was Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

From: Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 22:32:42 +0200

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adam Novak <[email-masked]> wrote:
><snip>
> One way to frustrate this sort of dragnet surveillance would be to reduce
> centralization in the Internet's architecture. Right now, the way the
> Internet works in practice for private individuals, all your traffic goes up
> one pipe to your ISP. It's trivial to tap, since the tapping can be
> centralized at the ISP end.

excellent idea... any suggestion on how that should be done?

Only one I can remember right now are LISP which sort of create a new
network on top of our current network, and the EID-block drafts being
worked on by some people (including me) tries to address how the
IP-space of this "new" network can be done.

But there must be other ways than through LISP-alike way of doing it?

> The IETF focused on developing protocols (and reserving the necessary
> network numbers) to facilitate direct network peering between private
> individuals, it could make it much more expensive to mount large-scale
> traffic interception attacks.

Think there are work being done on the topic? However, how are you
going to interconnect all of this private peerings? It sort of imply
that everyone need to have their own netblock they can exchange with
others.

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 21:55:29 +0100

> that everyone need to have their own netblock they can exchange with

Mobile IPv6 gives one way to run multiple devices in one subnet. Someone needs to be the HA though. And/or if future homes have multiple /64's, it's not infeasible to dedicate one or more to virtual/overlay LANs.

Tim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 09:00:55 +1200

> Mobile IPv6 gives one way to run multiple devices in one subnet. Someone needs to be the HA though. And/or if future homes have multiple /64's, it's not infeasible to dedicate one or more to virtua…

It serves no purpose as long as there's an underlying customer/provider
relationship, because it's the provider that is suborned by the government
agency.

     Brian

---

From: manning bill <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:55:16 -0700

hum…

	i did work on a DNS architecture that can be fully disconnected from the "Internet" and still work with nodes within the visible topology.

	Needs serious rework of DNSSEC and has some assumptions about topology discovery -  but it might be a basis for starting some discussion

        on decentralization of that part of the centralized DNS.

/bill

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 21:45:15 -0400

> IP-space of this "new" network can be done.

LISP does nothing for decentralization.  Traffic still flows
hierarchically,  encapsulated or not, and you add the mapping system which
is naturally hierarchical and another vulnerability.  The diameter of the
Internet has not increased much despite its growth, due to both
cross-connects and hubs. I don't think there is much more that can be done
practically to decentralize traffic flow.

Scott