|
3.1. Read the text
The Internet is under attack
www.computerworld.com
At a ceremony at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (
ICANN
)
headquarters
in Miami, the last
remaining Internet Protocol v4 (IPv4) addresses were handed out to the Regional Internet Registries. The registries
are to pass them onto organisations worldwide.
This isn't as desperate as it might sound. Right now we should all be switching to Internet Protocol v6, where
addresses are more than plentiful. Created way back in 1996, IPv6 allows for such a
huge
number of addresses that
it's difficult to write them down. In total there are 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 340
undecillion).
However, IPv6 just hasn't gotten its act together. Despite so many addresses, only the tiniest fraction is in use right
now. Why? Because switching from IPv4 to IPv6 is far from
seamless
. Businesses and homes will have to upgrade
the
firmware
in their routers, at the very least and might need new hardware. It's the same elsewhere on the
Internet; all the interconnecting yet
invisible
devices will need to be upgraded or replaced. The thing is that we can't
simply turn off the Internet for a few hours to make the change. Operating systems such as Windows and Mac OS X
have been IPv6-ready for years but because nobody's actually using it, it's not clear how well they'll work.
However, there's another solution to the shortage of addresses, such as Carrier
Grade
Network Address Translation
that Comcast is currently trialling. Other Internet service providers (ISPs) might follow, and it's something we should
watch closely because our very Internet freedom is threatened by it. Carrier
Grade
Network Address Translation
(NAT) allows ISPs to share one
Internet address
among many users. An entire
neighborhood
could share a single
address, for example.
Low-level
Internet users who do little more than browse the web or check email won't know
any difference after being switched to Carrier
Grade
NAT. However, anybody who uses
virtual private networking
(VPN
), who
videoconferences
site-to-site, or who uses
file sharing
software will hit a brick wall. Such technologies
simply can't operate if Carrier
Grade
NAT is in use, because they rely on users having full IP addresses.
None of the ISPs want Carrier
Grade
NAT, or so they say, but the last entry in the above list might give them pause
for thought:
file sharing
. Carrier
Grade
NAT lets ISPs switch off
file sharing
under the banner of making a necessary
technological fix. Suddenly, ISPs would no longer be a part of the controversial
file sharing
debate. They wouldn't
have to waste money and time responding to requests from copyright
holders
to identify file sharers. There'd be no
more government pressure.
Sure,
business users
who want to videoconference or VPN into their
workplace
will complain at not having "
proper
"
Internet connections, but they can always upgrade to a more expensive "business" package, whereby they get their
own IP address.
Alongside IP address
exhaustion
, another warning sign of the times is the proposed expansion of general top-level
domains (
gTLDs
). Top level domains are the endings of web addresses, such as .com and .org, as well as country-
level domains, such as .uk for the United Kingdom, and .de for Germany. At the
moment
everybody in the world
either has (or wants) a .com address, even though this rarely makes much sense. In fact, there should be top level
domains (
TLDs
) for every profession, type of business, product and so on.
The whole world relying on grabbing .com addresses is insane. There are other
TLDs
, of course, such as .net, but
.com has a stranglehold over the public's imagination. However, this is set to change. The Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (
ICANN
) has finally finished debating a massive expansion of the TLD space, and will
soon be inviting applications for new
TLDs
. However, the US government isn't entirely happy about this. It wants
governments to be able to veto new
TLDs
on
grounds
of taste or decency or, in fact, whatever reasons they dream
up at the time.
The problem is this: what one person in one country finds offensive, somebody in another country might consider
healthy. There's a strong chance countries that take offence would simply
ban
the controversial domain, and thereby
break the Internet's democratic
approach
. The Internet could become fragmented, with access to domains governed
entirely by the sensibilities of the party in power in a country at any given particular time.
57
It's at times of change that organisations and systems are at their weakest, and it certainly
feels
as if the Internet is
both weakened and under attack at the
moment
. The Internet we will use in just a few years' time might look and
operate
radically
differently compared to what we use today.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
