Architectural implications of NAT

“The architectural intent of NAT is to divide the Internet into independent address administrations […] The result of this division is to enforce a client/server architecture (vs. peer/peer) where the servers need to exist in the public address realm.

A significant factor in the success of the Internet is the flexibility derived from a few basic tenets. Foremost is the End- to-End principle, which notes that certain functions can only be performed in the endpoints, thus they are in control of the communication, and the network should be a simple datagram service that moves bits between these points. Restated, the endpoint applications are often the only place capable of correctly managing the data stream. Removing this concern from the lower layer packet-forwarding devices streamlines the forwarding process, contributing to system-wide efficiency.

Another advantage is that the network does not maintain per connection state information. This allows fast rerouting around failures through alternate paths and to better scaling of the overall network. Lack of state also removes any requirement for the network nodes to notify each other as endpoint connections are formed or dropped. Furthermore, the endpoints are not, and need not be, aware of any network components other than the destination, first hop router(s), and an optional name resolution service. Packet integrity is preserved through the network, and transport checksums and any address-dependent security functions are valid end-to-end.

NAT devices (particularly the NAPT variety) undermine most of these basic advantages of the end-to-end model, reducing overall flexibility, while often increasing operational complexity and impeding diagnostic capabilities.”

From IETF RFC 2993: “Architectural Implications of NAT”, November 2000

Julian Assange on WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks, Surveillance State

“There’s not a barrier anymore between corporate surveillance, on the one hand, and government surveillance, on the other. You know, Facebook is based—has its servers based in the United States. Gmail, as General Petraeus found out, has its servers based in the United States. And the interplay between U.S. intelligence agencies and other Western intelligence agencies and any intelligence agencies that can hack this is fluid. So, we’re in a—if we look back to what’s a earlier example of the worst penetration by an intelligence apparatus of a society, which is perhaps East Germany, where up to 10 percent of people over their lifetime had been an informer at one stage or another, in Iceland we have 88 percent penetration of Iceland by Facebook. Eighty-eight percent of people are there on Facebook informing on their friends and their movements and the nature of their relationships—and for free. They’re not even being paid money. They’re not even being directly coerced to do it. They’re doing it for social credits to avoid the feeling of exclusion. But people should understand what is really going on. I don’t believe people are doing this or would do it if they truly understood what was going on, that they are doing hundreds of billions of hours of free work for the Central Intelligence Agency, for the FBI, and for all allied agencies and all countries that can ask for favors to get hold of that information.

William Binney, the former chief of research, the National Security Agency’s signals intelligence division, describes this situation that we are in now as ‘turnkey totalitarianism,’ that the whole system of totalitarianism has been built—the car, the engine has been built—and it’s just a matter of turning the key. And actually, when we look to see some of the crackdowns on WikiLeaks and the grand jury process and targeted assassinations and so on, actually it’s arguable that key has already been partly turned. The assassinations that occur extrajudicially, the renditions that occur, they don’t occur in isolation. They occur as a result of the information that has been sucked in through this giant signals interception machinery.”

— Excerpt from “Julian Assange on WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks, Surveillance State” (Democracy Now!, 29 November 2012)

[…]

And here’s another comment from Assange, on a related subject:

“I’m quite interested in the philosophy of technique. Technique means not just a piece of technology but it means, say, majority consensus on a board, or the structure of a parliament — it’s systematized interaction. For example, it seems to me that feudal systems came from the technique of mills. Once you had centralized mills, which required huge investments and which were easily subject to physical control, then it was quite natural that you would end up with feudal relations as a result. As time has gone by we seem to have developed increasingly sophisticated techniques. Some of these techniques can be democratized; they can be spread to everyone. But the majority of them — because of their complexity — are techniques that form as a result of strongly interconnected organizations like Intel Corporation. Perhaps the underlying tendency of technique is to go through these periods of discovering technique, centralizing technique, democratizing technique — when the knowledge about how to do it floods out in the next generation that is educated. But I think that the general tendency for technique is to centralize control in those people who control the physical resources of techniques.”

From “The Web can create revolutions — or jail revolutionaries” (Salon, 02 December 2012)

 

Voline: Anarchism and organization

“A mistaken — or, more often, deliberately inaccurate — interpretation alleges that the libertarian concept means the absence of all organization. This is entirely false: it is not a matter of “organization” or “nonorganization,” but of two different principles of organization…. Of course, say the anarchists, society must be organized. However, the new organization… must be established freely, socially, and, above all, from below. The principle of organization must not issue from a center created in advance to capture the whole and impose itself upon it but, on the contrary, it must come from all sides to create nodes of coordination, natural centers to serve all these points…. On the other hand, the other kind of “organization,” copied from that of the old oppressive and exploitative society,… would exaggerate all the blemishes of the old society…. It could then only be maintained by means of a new artifice.”

Voline (Во́лин)