Google Code Blog: A proposal to extend the DNS protocol

Google Code Blog: A proposal to extend the DNS protocol

(...)
Our proposed DNS protocol extension lets recursive DNS resolvers include part of your IP address in the request sent to authoritative nameservers. Only the first three octets, or top 24 bits, are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy.

I'm not sure whether this would be a good idea, since the very core would be "polluted" with additional (and not that necessary) information. Imagine a 10-years-from-now, IPv6-powered, broadbanded Internet sending zillions of requests to the DNS. The economy of every single bit would count into this situation.

Let's say this IP-enabled DNS request would fasten the whole resolution in 2-3 ms. How faster would it become if this same location had an IXP and a root server mirror? Maybe Google could install a

I'm not an expert, barely some kind of journalism guy who likes to watch the others working with these things, so maybe I'm telling a lot of b***s**t.

Quando é que eu vou fazer gráficos legais assim?

Eu recebo diariamente o boletim FlowingData, especializado em produção de gráficos insanamente legais.

Nos últimos dias recebi esses dois, absolutamente fantásticos:

Engineer’s Guide to Drinks | FlowingData

Por isso que eu prefiro beber cerveja: já vem pronta.


Data Underload #6 – Bed Head | FlowingData

E é por isso que eu uso cabelo curto.

DiploIG: A message to all members of Diplo Internet Governance Community

From DiploIG mailing list:

2010 has started and we hope you are all engaged in great projects on Internet governance! At Diplo, we just opened our Call for Applications 2010.

If you would like to find some information on the DiploFoundation call for applications for two different Internet governance and ICT policy courses, check this post made by Ginger Paque: http://bit.ly/DiploIG2010

And here is a collective article where we are sharing our views on interesting highlights from 2009, Internet governance and the Diplo community:
http://bit.ly/IG09retro

If you know people who would benefit from these trainings, please forward this message - the deadline to send applications is 12 February 2010.

Best regards,
The Diplo IG Team

Official Google Blog: A new approach to China

Some interesting excerpts from Google's statement on Chinese, let's say, market.

So, what's the least worse choice? To provide some information to some people and get all the bad reputation (as well as a storm of  governmental 'do this, don't do that' coming to your very nose everyday) or to simply vanish?

Official Google Blog: A new approach to China

Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.

(...)

We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."

(...)

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.