Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Should the US keep control of teh interwebz?Follow

#1 Sep 29 2005 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web
The Associated Press wrote:
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.

"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.
[...]
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.

One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
[...]
In 1998, the U.S. Commerce Department selected ICANN to oversees the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them everyday, likely without knowing it.

Although ICANN is a private organization with international board members, Commerce ultimately retains veto power. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.


On one hand, I'm an American so my opinion is biased. On the other, I'm usually all for helping folks get their piece of the pie. However, my gut reaction to the other nations is "tough nuts". We (the U.S. -- no one asked me to help) set it up, got it up and running on our dime and, well, now it's our playground. Anyone unhappy that they don't have a controlling say in it is free to start up their own internet. I'm sure Dell will sell ya whatcha need. You'll have to use the 800 number though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Sep 29 2005 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I'm sure accomodations are made and rates are somewhat lowered depending on the markets. I think it's a waste fo time when they have bigger fish to fry.
#3 Sep 29 2005 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Shouldn't it be up to Al Gore, since he invented it and all?
#4 Sep 29 2005 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
If it aint broke...
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#6 Sep 29 2005 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
Well if we give it away, we'll just have to invade to liberate it again... lets keep it.

Just kidding, we made the damn thing. Thanks Mr. U.N. Come Lately!
#7 Sep 29 2005 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
**
579 posts
Someone who knows nothing about the Internet wrote:
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
Why doesn't the associated press get their facts straight first? The ploy about there not being enough addresses is complete BS. Basically with the introduction of IPv6, there will be an estimated 1 IP address for every grain of sand in the world. If that isn't enough IPs, I will pray for us all.
#8 Sep 29 2005 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
How many of you guys actually use IPv6?

*crickets*

Yea, thats about what I thought too.
#9 Sep 29 2005 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
It's ours. **** off.
#10 Sep 29 2005 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
**
579 posts
Quote:
How many of you guys actually use IPv6?

*crickets*

Yea, thats about what I thought too.
Actually in commercial standards IPv6 has been rolled out as a standard by Sun Micro Systems for a few years now. You need to realize that IPv4 is 20 some years old and outdated. It is in the process of being phased out. With IPv6 you will have addresses which are four times the number of bits as IPv4 addresses (128 vs. 32). This is 4 Billion times 4 Billion times 4 Billion (2^^96) times the size of the IPv4 address space (2^^32). This works out to be:

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

Also IPv6 is per interface. There are many advantages to using IPv6 and most companies have already jumped aboard. Eventually the home market will catch on.
#11 Sep 29 2005 at 1:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
We made it, we've ran it until now, and I don't see any problems with it. You don't like it? Don't use it.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#12 Sep 29 2005 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
Quote:
Eventually the home market will catch on.


That's what they said about Laserdisk.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#14 Sep 29 2005 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
I understand how IP addresses work.

I also understand how subnet masks work, mostly... so I'm gonna say that 4*2^8 is a much lower number than IPv4 actually suports.

My ISP isn't using it, my webhosting company isn't using it, my company isn't using it, ogame isn't using it, my college didn't use it, and neither did my wife's...

What I'm asking then, is if any of you have actually seen it in the wild?

Not even the AirForce base I did a project at (which was the gateway for four other bases, and other parts of the southwest DoD network, on an OC3 line) used it.

I can compile it into my linux kernel and enable it in windows... but where the hell is that going to get me?


#15 Sep 29 2005 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
**
579 posts
The other thing about IPv6 is that it will have to be enforced. Look at all the multimedia devices that are getting hooked on the web. Its not just computers anymore. Its blackberry devices, mobile phones, pagers, gaming devices. It will become an absolute neccesity sooner than you think. This is different than a device like Laserdisk or Betamax in the fact that it will not be a convenience. You need an IP address to get on the Interent. Countries like Japan and China have already embraced IPv6 and there is actually much speculation that if the U.S. doesn't follow suit that the majority cluster may make a move from the good old USA to Eastern Asia.

The Department of Defense is in the process of migrating to IPv6, but many other governmental agencies will not follow suit either because they lack the technological management (which is sad but true for a lot of corporations as well) or they simply will not do it until they are told by the powers that be.

This is a very interesting topic because there is speculation that the busniesses are shifting to global operations business models over the conventional national business model. What does this mean to networks in general? If you work for a company based out of California, with a data center in Madrid, and the Engineering department is based out of India, don't you think it would be in your best interest to jump on this oppotunity now before its too late.
#16 Sep 29 2005 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Attention ubernerds. Would BGP support IPv6?
#17 Sep 29 2005 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
Why does the UN insist on challenging US authority at every turn?
#18 Sep 29 2005 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
**
579 posts
Quote:
Attention ubernerds. Would BGP support IPv6?
Here you go. Cisco white papers on running both BGP and NAT over IPv6. Anything else?Smiley: grin

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5187/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00801d65f3.html
#19 Sep 29 2005 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.

Developing nations are calling for UN control of the internet/WWW, which is decidely different from the UN calling for control.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Sep 29 2005 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
I say we tell them they can eat **** and die. Our web, get their own, dirt poor farm hoes.
#21 Sep 29 2005 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
Amazing how greedy we capitalist pigs are. I wish Dracoid were here to point it out in his gloriously charming manner. That and call someone a c[/i]unt.

Anyway, I'm just another on the "***** them" bandwagon. It's our ball and we pick who gets to play with it. Don't like it? Tough.
#22 Sep 29 2005 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
This all works fine for me.

You run it, we use it.

Ain't broke. No need to FTFY.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#23 Sep 29 2005 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Lefein wrote:
Why does the UN insist on challenging US authority at every turn?


On the same note though ... what does the U.S. really stand to loose by giving up control?
#24 Sep 29 2005 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
I think we should take our ball and gome home so to speak, see where the hell that leaves them.

I'm sure it would only take a few hours work to functionally shut down the rest of the world.

Except England and Ireland. Might interfere with the importation or somthing.

Luckily I just stocked up on Guinness. Though I'm not sure if that is made here in the US or not.

Don't really care.

Any case... yea, ***** 'em.
#25 Sep 29 2005 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
****
5,135 posts
Quote:
On the same note though ... what does the U.S. really stand to loose by giving up control?



Virtual property



#26 Sep 29 2005 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
On the same note though ... what does the U.S. really stand to loose by giving up control?
teenchickswithdi[i][/i]cks.com
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 146 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (146)