If The Internet Is Shutdown

[Corrosion.]

Although I find it unlikely it is still possible.

IF the internet were ever shutdown by either government or any other means, could it be secretly re-built by someone?

I mean what would you even need to do something like that? Could you really take personal computers and re-build the core of the internet with it.  I understand that the internet is made up of server which yes many are run via home computers but. . . .  The main  core of the internet ie: domains and other services that actually run the internet.  How would that work, would it be possible to re-build it from a home computer as you would run a web server?

What do you think?

[moonlit]

It would indeed be possible. No small job, mind you, but possible. You'd have trouble getting the kind of traffic the internet copes with without the support of the infrastructure currently in place but it's definitely something that could be done. You could even simulate a miniature version of the internet using a decently powerful computer and a pile of VMs.

I'm no expert on the topic, but the services that are run aren't really anything special (compared to a service that you might run on a LAN, for instance), you just have to make sure that all the computers on the network can access the services and that you have enough power and bandwidth to cope with the loads it'd be under.

[Corrosion.]

Interesting, I'd like to try this as a proof of concept, just to see how it would work.

Do you know what software I should look for? other than vm of course.

[SomeoneE1se]

all you really need is a router(not a home nat device) and something DNS to get the CORE of the internet

TCP/IP wants to work, it's a very good protocol. IMHO

[Sparda]

The problem in the idea is no one government controls the Internet. The Internet in a country is usually controlled by who ever setup the physical infrastructure (US: AT&T/<cable company>, UK: BT/VirginMedia).

The Internet is essentially a big (world wide?) web of routers (not NAT). Each routers knows which router it is connected to knows how to get packets addressed to a particle block of IP address to it's distention.

Let's say (just for fun) every router in the world suddenly lost power, but it was only routers (again, not NAT routers). Some 'force' is preventing all newly built or other wise hardware designed routers from working. Your standard OS has a routing table that allows the OS to determine which interface it needs to send packets out on for them to reach their destination. In theory, if every one behaved, did nothing malicious or any thing silly and used (as a workable easy to understand example) the physical address of the computer to create a unique IPv6 address. Then, every computer has an unlimited sized routing table (not possible), in theory, you could create a giant ad hoc wireless network, each computer knowing which was the fastest way to get packets to a computer x number of computers away, then you would have an Internet of sorts. Highly unreliable completely open to every attack you can name etc. but of sorts.

A centralized Internet is far easer to manage. By centralized, I don't mean physically, I mean some one sat down and decided this is how there part of the internet is going to be lied out and how every thing will connect to it. With out routers available however, they are going to have rooms full of computers with 10 NICs or so in each, using them as routers. If one of them is miss configured either that part of the Internet won't work or every one on that part of the Internet is sitting in a bucket of swill if not both.

[Corrosion.]

do you think the internet or part of it will ever be shutdown?

[Sparda]

do you think the internet or part of it will ever be shutdown?

I believe Saudi Arabia (as an example) has little or no Internet access. I can happen. A fearful country might disconnect it's self for what ever reason. A well managed country, for example, might leave it on, and have it appear completely unaltered. Except, perhaps setup honey pots, a Windows 2003 server with ISS perhaps. Fill it with propaganda and let the enemy have it. Obviously, 2003 with ISS is an obvious target, and any one with half a mind would not use that to 'store 'government secrets'. A BSD computer with a single line of easy to over look missconfiguration would be far more believable.

[VaKo]

Shutdown? No, that would require a world wide effort the likes of which have yet to been seen in terms of national cooperation. And many country's economy's depend on the Internet so it would be even more unlikely to be shutdown en-mass. There are several weak points though, if certain sites in the USA were nuked a lot of the peering that the global communications systems rely on could be severally disrupted, which would certainly change things. If that did happen, the Internet would fall back to a more fragmented state of play with different networks unable to talk to each other until new peering was established. Given that there are multiple sites and peering links, recent events in the gulf states when several cables were cut show a more likely outcome. Services are maintained but they're much slower.

I do not agree with Sparda's comments, as I cannot imagine any government using a publically accessible server to store any noteable information on. VPN services are what you target, as they give you access to the networks themselves.

[Corrosion.]

I have heard rumors online of large isp companies forcing other websites or the end user large amounts of money for the dsl speed and slowing everyone else down to make more money, do you see this as a possibility? I'd hate to have the internet slowed down because of greed.

[VaKo]

Net Neutrality is a complex issue. Its not just a case of greedy ISP's charging big bucks to sites like google for allowing access etc. Its a case of traffic management. The rate at which people find new uses for bandwidth is growing at a much faster rate than the speed of the pipes that deliver this access. And given that everything from phone comms to on-demand video services are starting to encroach on that same bandwidth, some form of traffic management and prioritisation is needed. In a far smaller sense, its the same as managing the traffic on your local network. Things like bittorrent will eat any bandwidth it can find and rapidly reduce anything else to a standstill, so it is useful to give stuff like normal web browsing a higher priority than bt traffic in order to maintain your quality of service.

The only issue I see with this is if this access becomes something you can pay for. Almost like having a road system where you can pay £100 a week to legally speed or drink drive.

This is better said here, so read this register article before you jump on the "OMG" band wagon.

If you've followed the occasionally surreal, and often hysterical debate around 'Net Neutrality' on US blogs and discussion forums, you may have encountered Richard Bennett. The veteran engineer played a role in the design of the internet we use today, and helped shaped Wi-Fi. He's also been blogging for a decade. And he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Bennett argues that the measures proposed to 'save' the internet, which in many cases are sincerely held, could hasten its demise. Network congestion is familiar to anyone's who has ever left a BitTorrent client running at home, and it's the popularity of such new applications that makes better network management an imperative if we expect VoIP to work well. The problem, he says, is that many of the drafts proposed to ensure 'Net Neutrality' would prohibit such network management, and leave VoIP and video struggling.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/17/ne...eath/print.html

[Corrosion.]

That is my fear, paying alot more for the internet I know and love today. At which point it may become a big problem. Although if it becomes big enough people will either find a hack around it or just stop surfing and hopfuly if this does happen it will be taken care of.

Although expensive a temporary solution is to do away with dsl and get t1 lines put up everywhere charging the same as dsl, lmao! Wouldn't that be a dream come true? Just saying their would be more bandwidth in the sense, anyway until that day I'll surf my brains out :)

[MRGRIM]

I only just found this topic while searching for something else (so hopefully I'm not pointlessly bumping an old topic)

What I am struggling to understand is how DSL differs from Dial Up (in terms of connection method) I can understand how someone could start rebuilding with simple Modems e.g. I'll Dial your server and then we're connected. Does DSL work in the same way? From my understanding it doesn't? e.g. A provider needs to go make changes to my local exchange to enable DSL to be used on the physical line?

[VaKo]

DSL is just a method of providing a high bandwidth connection to a remote network, that network has to be connected to other networks for you to be able to do anything with it.

[barry99705]

That is my fear, paying alot more for the internet I know and love today. At which point it may become a big problem. Although if it becomes big enough people will either find a hack around it or just stop surfing and hopfuly if this does happen it will be taken care of.

Although expensive a temporary solution is to do away with dsl and get t1 lines put up everywhere charging the same as dsl, lmao! Wouldn't that be a dream come true? Just saying their would be more bandwidth in the sense, anyway until that day I'll surf my brains out :)

You do know that most dsl subscriptions are faster than T1 right? T1 is an expensive dinosaur and should be put down.

[barry99705]

Another thing to think about. If something was to happen to make the entire internet to go down, we'd have bigger things to worry about than getting out email and WOW.

[Obsidian]

It depends largely upon where the internet was cut off. If the current providers closed up shop and shut off their lines there really isn't much that could be done. Could/would likely then have to revert back to dialing into a server via a modem. Unless the person running this server had a lot of money for multiple phone lines and was willing to pay any potential long distance charges it would be a straight client/server setup.

Basically, things would go back to the old dial-in BBS days. One user would call the server and download, post messages, read messages, mail, etc. Then that user would log off and another user would dial in and repeat the process. Then every day/week the server would then call another server and upload all the posts, messages, or files to the next server until all the servers sync up and the mail is delivered. Basically, it is that way now only with dedicated bandwidth so the latency is measures in milliseconds instead of days or weeks.

If even modem communications over voice lines were restricted then things would go back even further to the point at which the internet would simply cease to be. A potential work around would be, as one person suggested, a large wireless network. But given the size and spaces involved in blanketing a country like the US it would be next to impossible. It would have massive holes in it and be inherently unreliable. Beyond that there is the potential for interference with other devices both intentional and unintentional.

In my opinion, if a country wanted to "take down the internet"... yes it is possible. Anything that can be built can be destroyed. There will always be a means to get information in some form however. Even if it involves physically talking to a person to get your message delivered. Heck, centuries ago people would tatoo secrets on a slave's head and wait for the hair to grow over it. The latency would be measured in the months or years but there's always a way. All the internet truly does is bring the communication latency and interconnectedness to as close to a single point in space/time as possible.

We used to live in a world that valued information, but today we put more value on what is actually done with the information rather than simply having it. Growing up spending hours trying to get any research done in books, magazines, newspapers, and card catalogs was tedious at best and simply having the information was a godsend. Today and preschooler can google theology and find copious amounts of information. Having the information doesn't matter anymore. It's what you do with it.

Would I want to go back to a less connected world? No. Having access to the collective knowledge of the world at my fingertips puts each and every one of us in a position for advancing the human race by leaps and bounds previously unfathomable. ;)

[ParMan]

Things like bittorrent will eat any bandwidth it can find and rapidly reduce anything else to a standstill, so it is useful to give stuff like normal web browsing a higher priority than bt traffic in order to maintain your quality of service.

The only issue I see with this is if this access becomes something you can pay for. Almost like having a road system where you can pay £100 a week to legally speed or drink drive.

this caught my eye kinda off topic and what not but when i use IDM for downloading things off rapidshare it eats all my traffic and i normally don't mind unless i want to do something else with the network are there any good programs to help you manage your traffic use for each computer or gaming system?

[555]

If for some crazy reason it was shut down.. YES it would definitely be possible.

Before highspeed internet we used to have this thing called dial up modems.. it would be very slow, people may revert back to BBS systems like WWiV or Renegade and you may have to wardial phone numbers to find other connections... lol

but I highly doubt the whole internet would be shut down for a long period of time. In a worst case senerio i dont think it would be shut down for more then 24/hours, and that would be like in a nuclear war situation

[wh1t3 and n3rdy]

Possible yes but i doubt this would ever happen. I fucking hope not lol.

[VaKo]

I think you would most likely see some forms of balkanization of networks, however the internet is largely too important for anyone to give up on.

[Seshan]

If the whole internet get's shut down, I think there will be more important things to worry about. Like am I going to grow a tail out of my ass, or a hand out of my head.

[h3%5kr3w]

If it ever went down, I would just open all my ports, throw on a Ms 2003 server, set as a root server, and broadcast my IP address with me as a url redirect... That way, most probably (unless the telecom's clusters were shut down) everybody would just get to my page, get an Ip and a reverse lookup and boom. Half the south coast is back online (and my internetz would not be usable for anything else :P)

[Return==404]

Given that the Internet acts as foundation for the services that run our Governmental systems in Western Civilization removing the Internet would remove the Government.

Transportation, communication, law enforcement, education, finance and healthcare would all disappear without access to the resources that the Internet provides.

[Somken]

I thought Comcast was already doing this.

[shonen]

Hey isn't their 9 primary or something DNS servers that the internet uses? and if those 9 major DNS servers were shut down wouldn't the internet go along with it?

I remember reading an article sometime ago about a couple of these primary DNS servers getting DDOS'd