A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies 100
alex simonelis submitted a good summary of the major internet bodies. If you hunger to know the difference between ICANN, IETF, ISOC and the rest of the alphabet soup of the governing bodies that make our beloved internet possible, this is a great place to look. It covers 10 major organizations.
I don't see Paris Hilton (Score:5, Funny)
Who is this guy kidding? The major Internet bodies my eye!
Re:I don't see Paris Hilton (Score:2)
Slashdot is becoming mainstream and I don't like it. People used to flame me for being an idiot, and that was good - I am.
boobies, just for good measure, mod points, karma, and depressive meaning.
Re:I don't see Paris Hilton (Score:2)
Re:I don't see Paris Hilton (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I don't see Paris Hilton (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking of which, someone cuted it up nicely on B3ta recently...
http://www.b3ta.com/board/4332139 [b3ta.com]
If you've never seen it, this gives you a chance to get the idea without burning the full horror of it into your brain forever.
Over Macho Grande? (Score:2)
Re:I don't see Paris Hilton (Score:1)
ahh (Score:4, Funny)
Major Internet Bodies? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think they can call this guide "concise" until they address these gaping holes...
Re:Major Internet Bodies? (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking of gaping holes, I think you're missing another major internet body yourself
Re:Major Internet Bodies? (Score:1)
Re:Major Internet Bodies? (Score:1)
"I don't think they can call this guide "concise" until they address these gaping holes..."
Re:Major Internet Bodies? (Score:2)
Re:Major Internet Bodies? (Score:1)
What vs How (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, how (pardon my ignorance) ICANN actually controls numbers and names, technically. Is there a mainframe of some sort that stores them? How does ICANN make changes?
Re:What vs How (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it's all stored in DNS servers. You request a server and your browser does a DNS lookup at your primary DNS server, which is probably run by your ISP. If your primary DNS server doesn't know the correct IP, it asks a server higher up the chain (or gets your browser to ask, I can't remember which). If that server doesn't kno
Re:What vs How (Score:2, Funny)
The 13 Root Servers Buwahahahahaha
I welcome our 13 Demonic Server Overlords
Re:What vs How (Score:3, Informative)
The DNS really only holds the mappings betweens IP addresses and host names. There are a few other things in there, but not all of the assigned numbers, by any means.
The IANA has responsibility for a lot of other things. Basically they get tasked in documents published by the IETF, called RFC's, to maintain registries of various assignments. Fo
Re:What vs How (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone tries every day, to be more precise there are over 1000 attacks against core DNS each day. Most of the roots are run on a basis that I regard as far too casual given the critical nature of the infrastructure.
There are not 13 root DNS servers, there are 13 root IP addresses which is not the same thing at all. Several of the roots are anycast so there are actually multiple data centers serving them. The number of root servers is much larger than 13.
Another pretty major omission from the list is OASIS which has roughly the same degree of influence as W3C and considerably more than the IETF.
The premise of the list is somewhat misguided. The standards bodies themselves don't have any influence on the Internet, its the members and the software providers who have influence. The point of the standards work is to get buy in from the necessary stakeholders, not to solve problems by committee.
Giving the choice between having my spec rejected by the IESG and having it rejected by Microsoft or the Apache group I'll choose the first. One of the big problems with the IETF is that many folk think that they are somehow 'in control'. Not on this Internet you ain't, if I don't get a chance to vote on who holds an office I don't see why I have to respect the decisions made by the office holder. I certainly don't see why I should wait two years or more for them to come to a decision.
I helped set up W3C when the IETF web standards effort collapsed. HTML was originally proposed in the IETF and turned into a disaster. When W3C was not interested in doing the work I do I played a leading role in one of the early OASIS Web Security standards. I am currently sitting in a W3C working group where the discussion has got into some particularly arcane details of XML.
Standards organizations are a vehicle, they are neither the driver, nor the road.
Re:What vs How (Score:1)
Re:What vs How (Score:2)
It doesn't. That's the problem. It's into "stability" which means "no innovation, nothing changes".
Whenever a dictator takes over a country they say it's for reasons of "stability". Check it out, that really is what they say.
The reason in ICANN's case is trademarks and nothing more.
Cowboy Neil Option? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cowboy Neil Option? (Score:2)
Especially covered in hot grits.
Lawyers for the IANA (Score:5, Funny)
I eventually wisened up (Score:3, Funny)
The first few times I saw that abbreviation, I thought it was like the "I [heart] Hucklebees" thing and my browser was dropping the heart character.
Didn't know why people were so proud of it... figured it was something to do with goats
What about the other internets? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about the other internets? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:What about the other internets? (Score:1)
Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, they don't mean that kind of internet body?
Drat.
<shameless plug> [blogspot.com]
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
Wait, they don't mean that kind of internet body?
From the pictures I've seen, bodies is right
ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ha (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ha (Score:2)
Re:ha (Score:2)
Re:ha (Score:2)
I guess the hard part is getting to a decent page to start from.
Re:ha (Score:2)
Google took the technology and advanced it, then they worked out what we wanted and added it. Now they have our support they don't suddenly pull shit on us. This is why google is "the internet" as I said. It's exactly what the internet should be, not what marketers want it to be.
I'm a regular contributor to (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm a regular contributor to (Score:3, Informative)
WTH?
Re:I'm a regular contributor to (Score:1)
Neat List of Relevant Links (Score:4, Informative)
karma theif (Score:1)
Neat List? If you are going to karma whore, at least do it right
Re:Neat List of Relevant Links (Score:1)
A good list still
Re:Neat List of Relevant Links (Score:2)
You forgot SCO, the organization to whom you must go in order to obtain a proper SCOsource [scosource.com] license for "intellectual property" in Linux.
ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:5, Interesting)
ICANN is supposed to have a standards pillar. However all internet standards are really developed by the IETF, published by the RFC Editor and adopted by the community the way that they have always been. (The exception being HTML/HTTP and its derivatives - the W3C is entirely corporate)
There's some mention here of the dispute over IANA. Back in the day, it was just Postel, and he demonstrated entire control over the root servers. But now it's really not clear who controls the root servers, allocates IP address ranges to the regional registries, and assigns other numbers. This stuff should be transparent!
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:2)
The bigger question of what it *should be*.... is a bigger question.....
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.iana.org/root-management.htm [iana.org]
http://www.iana.org/contact.htm [iana.org]
It seems most people love to bitch piss and moan about ICANN/IANA, but they can't pick up a damned phone or write an email (or, for that matter, type in the F@#$ing URL that is rather forthcoming about process, policies and procedures) when it's far easier to scream "conspiracy!"
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:2)
According to the Wikipedia article on IANA, control of the root zone is technically still in the hands of the US Department of Commerce, not ICANN. Though of the 13 root servers, 4 are run by non-US organizations.
Wasn't China complaining about this earlier this week?
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:2)
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:2)
Right answer wrong reason.
The DoC, through NTIA oversees ICANN, but retains authority over the root zone. That is, DoC/NTIA must vet any changes to the root ICANN suggests. ICANN can do no more than suggest changes.
NTIA in theory will hand over this authority to ICANN once they trust it
Re:ISOC/IETF vs ICANN (Score:3, Interesting)
If you'd actually tried this you know how non-productive this idea is. I wasted [doc.gov] 10 years [vrx.net] of my life [vrx.net] doing [vrx.net] exactly this [iahc.org], only to watch a bloated and corrupt ICANN emerge in spite of everything hundreds of people did and now watch all our predictions about their future potential wrongdoings come true. I do not feel good about this.
When the US government was handing over IANA to "the ne
and don't forget! (Score:1)
OIC YAAA, OK (Score:2)
I almost posted to this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have we turned 12 yet?
Re:You DID post to this... (Score:2)
Sorry, Mom...
My favorite guides to internet bodies are (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My favorite guides to internet bodies are (Score:2)
Possible slogans:
Huns do it on horseback.
It's not the size of the bow, it's the curve of the wood.
You show me your furry hat, I'll show you mine.
Is that a yurt in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
He forgot... (Score:1)
Smell (Score:1)
Re:Smell (Score:2)
Duh. That's because it's different names for the same people.
If you google It seeks Overall Control [google.com] you get ISOC [netsys.com].
And only ISOC. I'm sure that's just coincidence.
But, that's the way [vrx.net] it's always [vrx.net] been [vrx.net].
I really had to laugh at the story about the ITU taking over control of the DNS namespace and IP allocations. Say it doesn't happen. The I* people are in charge. Say it does happen. They all move over there and they are still in charge. That's just what th
You Missed One... (Score:2)
Public Key Infrastructure (Score:1)
Re:Public Key Infrastructure (Score:2)
The companies that publish the most used web browsers, that's who.
The internet is edge-controlled, and has no central authority despite what any organization whose name begins with an "I" thinks.
My persistant question. (Score:2)
I guess that ISPs pay bigger ISPs and so on upwards, but who, in the end, owns the bandwidth?
More importantly, is there any way I can weasel my way into the trunk?
Re:My persistant question. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no 'center' or 'trunk' of the Internet. Every bandwidth flow is between two endpoints. Large backbone network operators generally have peering agreements (eg I'll send traffic to you that wants to go to your addresses if you agree to do the same for me, and we'll do it over the same set of wires) and either in most cases any two organizations that consider themselves to be 'peers' figure that average traffic in both directions will be the same, so they do it on a basis of each network paying for its own costs to interconnect to the other. Sometimes if the traffic is expected to be unbalanced, there will be a cost recovery clause in the peering agreement.
There are facilities known as 'peering points' that manage and operate various sorts of switched networks (FDDI, ATM, etc) that an organization can colocate routing equipment, and then have a shared 'connection' that they are able to use to peer with any other network operators that are located there. These are known as 'NAPs' - some were established back in the days of the NSF, some came later. These are about as close to the 'center' of the Internet as you can get, but they are not the center (nor is there a free ride to anywhere else from them)
Note you have to have your *own* IP addresses to peer, you announce your networks via BGP and accept announcements from your peers - you are specifically NOT allowed to use any other peer's router as your 'default route' - you can only send traffic to them that has a destination of one of the networks they announce to you as theirs, and you generally can only become party to a peering agreement if the other parties think you really are their 'peer' eg that it is desirable for them to connect to you as it is to you to connect to them. This would generally be met by being a large backbone yourself, with your own connectivity it multiple (more than 3) peering points, and your own customers (such as ISP's, webhosts, businesses, etc)
It is also possible to connect and a peering point and obtain what you think of as 'Internet service' - its called 'transit' - and its another type of agreement you can enter, that specifically *does* allow you to 'default' to the router of the org that you pay for transit. You can expect to pay market rates for transit bandwidth, although its a pretty competitive market. You would still be responsible for locating your own router onsite, interconnections with the shared fabric, and then the backhaul to your location.
For an interesting read, see http://worldofends.com/
~25 biggest ISPs (Score:2)