Archive for March, 2011

“Splinternet” is marketing bullshit!

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011
After reading a lot of marketing hype on the concept that the Internet is falling apart and becoming a “splinternet”, I have to respond:

The Internet is not just simple access to web sites, it’s not your ability to use Skype on your AT&T smart phone, and it’s not IPv4 and IPv6. It simply is a network of networks that use a common underlying protocol (TCP/IP). The web is simply one of thousands and thousands of other applications that use their own protocols over IP. To some the Internet may simply be email, others chat. Even TCP/IP can be (and is) often filtered, yet it’s still a network of networks.

What a country, corporation, or network decides to do with the way their networks function is really up to the policy of that network owner and the majority of its users. It always has been that way. Fourteen or fifteen years ago corporate America figured out that they can control what their users see and do, governments figured it out, and so did network providers.

I’m not an advocate of network filtration, control, and restrictions — it’s repugnant. However, how a society polices itself is up to that society and does not dictate that the Internet is broken.

In recent tweets I have seen companies push their products with comments such as, “How we broke the good old Internet, and why 90′s were simply better.” The link goes to their blog then shows how they fix the broken Internet. Marketing people, I don’t know if you remember but in the 90’s we had AOL and Prodigy and if anything resembled a “broke” Internet, it was that! Oh yeah… and broadband was measured in Kbps not Mbps or Gbps. Internet today is functioning fine, we may have a concentration of users on apps like Facebook and Twitter, yet the entire protocol stack is still available and by no means has the Internet fractured or splintered so badly that it is broken.

If anything we may have outgrown a 30-year-old protocol that resembles a 1970′s used Cessna aircraft that has duct tape holding on parts of its interior, but just like the 70′s Cessna the Internet still works and does what it was built to do.

I’ll accept a term like Splinternet when there really is a network that’s unique and separated from the Internet for public consumption. Maybe it is time a for a bunch of people to organize a world wide wireless network that cuts out all corporations and really have it splinter off the Internet. However, I would rather hear that called the Alternet (for nostalgic reasons) than a Splinternet. Yet, eventually this alternative network will join with the Internet and it will basically be… The Internet all over again.

P.S. stormdriver.com can you please fix the credits on the image you are using. I have no idea who Matt Britt is but I made the image you are using for your marketing purposes. The original image is here

Hey AT&T customers: Your Facebook data went to China and S. Korea this morning…

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011
Quietly this morning customers of AT&T browsing Facebook did so by way of China then Korea. Typically AT&T customers’ data would have routed over the AT&T network directly to Facebook’s network provider but due to a routing mistake their private data went first to Chinanet then via Chinanet to SK Broadband in South Korea, then to Facebook. This means that anything you looked at via Facebook without encryption was exposed to anyone operating Chinanet, which has a very suspect Modus operandi.

This morning’s route to Facebook from AT&T:

route-server>show ip bgp 69.171.224.13 (Facebook's www IP address)
BGP routing table entry for 69.171.224.0/20, version 32605349
Paths: (18 available, best #6, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
7018 4134 9318 32934 32934 32934

The AS path (routing path) translates to this:

  1. AT&T (AS7018)
  2. Chinanet (Data in China AS4134)
  3. SK Broadband (Data in South Korea AS9318)
  4. Facebook (Data back to US 32934)

Current route to Facebook via AT&T:

route-server>sho ip bgp 69.171.224.0/20
BGP routing table entry for 69.171.224.0/20, version 32743195
Paths: (18 available, best #6, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
7018 3356 32934 32934, (received & used)

Translated: Your data goes from AT&T’s network to US based Level3 Communications to Facebook’s servers.

What could have happened with your data? Most likely absolutely nothing. Yet, China is well known for it’s harmful networking practices by limiting network functionality and spying on its users, and when your data is flowing over their network, your data could be treated as any Chineese citizens’. Does that include capturing your session ID information, personal information, emails, photos, chat conversations, mappings to your friends and family, etc? One could only speculate, however it’s possible.

This brings up a lot of questions:

  • Should Facebook and or AT&T have notified their customers that their personal information was flowing over a network that they may not trust?
  • Should Facebook enable SSL on all accounts by default?
  • Was this actually a privacy breach or just the way the Internet functions?
  • Does Facebook have an ethical responsibility to buy additional IP connectivity to major broadband and mobile networks to prevent routing mishaps?
  • Is it time to focus on new options within BGP to prevent high profile sites from routing to non-authenticated networks?

This happens all the time — the Internet is just not a trusted network. Yet, I prefer to know that when I am on AT&T’s network, going to US located sites, my packets are not accidentally leaving the country and being subject to another nation’s policies. I guess that’s why you should not use Facebook in “bareback” mode and use HTTPS (SSL) any time you can.

Food for thought.

Thanks to Tom Scholl for the head’s up and thoughtful commentary on this subject.

Reclaiming Geek Culture

Monday, March 7th, 2011



When I started using computers as a little kid, it was all-inclusive; if you were interested, you were in the club. Eventually, communities were built around things like Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) that were places for getting email, downloading files, chatting with other people, and playing games.

The BBS operators wrote code and spent time designing a culture for their systems or communities. In the Northern California Foothills, we had what we called an MUPT meeting once a month. At our Modem User Pizza Thingy, we shared ideas, talked about communication, and generally were stupid, geeky nerds; and we loved it! I was too young to drive to the meeting so I had to be dropped off. Yet, that did not seem to matter to anyone. It was a blast and laid the foundation for my love of geek culture in motion and was ground zero for Northern California’s geek culture.

The BBS culture carried into the Internet and, wow, that’s where things got interesting. There was so much to learn, so much to do, so much more to talk about. Nothing was set in stone, there were no rules or regulations, and the only best common practices we could find were from the military. It was a free-for-all learning fest and that original MUPT/BBS culture remained intact. It was essentially the early days of online community building at its best.

Now, nearly 15 years have gone by and I have watched these groups of people that I deeply respect get older. Networking technology has aged with us and that original, youthful excitement has started to die. No longer is sharing considered a good thing. If you ask a “dumb” question on a large forum, you’re going to be flamed by some snarky person. This new culture has become one more akin to a “club” for only certain people and seems to be exclusive rather than inclusive like the geek culture I remember. Why is it that there are people that spend half of their day writing snide replies to prove that they are somehow smarter than the original poster?

It’s funny, as I was writing this post, I stumbled upon the Patton Oswalt article in Wired “Wake Up Geek Culture, Time to Die.” He had me in the first few sentences, particularly his phrase: “back when nerd meant something.” But, Oswalt experienced this more from a dedication to film and music, whereas I was devouring technology. Oswalt calls it an obsessive interest that led to deep knowledge and produced new artists. He points out that this innovation is missing today. We are just repurposing, manipulating past innovations.

Is this new culture the result or the reason for dwindling innovation?

Think about it; IPv4 has pretty much been mastered by the packet slingers that have learned everything there is to know about routing, load balancing, and networking. New technologies are faster and better, but are they new? The lack of interest in gathering, sharing in an “obsessive interest” manner, is creating an anti-geek culture.

All that said, I continue to choose to work in a start-up environment because I think it is one of the few remaining cultures that is working to foster innovation. It’s a place for creating and sharing new technologies to inspire. New ideas are new possibilities, and challenging the accepted is met with openness and consideration instead of arrogance or criticism. It feels brilliantly similar to the “old days.”

And if geek culture has gone to the trolls, then maybe it’s time we reclaimed it and restored it to its former glory. Being a true geek among peers requires comfort, trust, and the ability to be wrong, awkward, stupid, brilliant, genius, nerdy, and “out there” without ridicule – and for that, I salute my geeks!