Posted on the The North American Network Operators' Group's mailing list at https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog. -- YC
Forwarded Conversation Subject: Iran cuts 95% of Internet traffic ------------------------ From: Sean Donelan <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 7:11 AM Its very practical for a country to cut 95%+ of its Internet connectivity. Its not a complete cut-off, there is some limited connectivity. But for most ordinary individuals, their communication channels are cut-off. https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1196366347938271232 ---------- From: Wayne Bouchard <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 7:32 AM To: Sean Donelan <[email protected]> Though Iran's situation is hardly a new advent, it reminds me that more and more countries seem to be going for the centralized filter/control/kill option and what a sad development that is. It sure seems like this is going to vastly change how inter-nation traffic (or at least intercontinental) is exchanged between providers and even how bandwidth is sold. It feels to me like it won't be too much longer before such things start to become somewhat less a matter of business and more a matter of treaty. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard [email protected] Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/ ---------- From: Scott Weeks <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Does anyone know the network mechanics of how this happens? For example, do all fiber connections go through a government choke point for suppression? If so, what's to stop ubiquity-style microwave over the border to sympathetic folks on the other side? scott ---------- From: Matt Harris <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:42 AM Implementation specifics vary. Most rely on state control of consumer ISPs and implement a variety of systems at that layer. Many also have chokepoints for international connectivity as well. Penalties for evading the censorship regime? I don't know specifically what those entail, but probably at the very least fines and confiscation of equipment, possibly imprisonment, or even worse in some places? Scanning for RF emissions on common communications frequencies isn't particularly difficult, nor is police just looking around their jurisdictions for such antennas on the exterior of buildings. Of course, there will always be ways around these sorts of things for people who have the means/resources/technical capability to do so, and some will be much harder to get caught with than others. But the 0.01% of people who have the means and resources aren't the real target anyway, as many people with the means are people who already have a lot to lose and hence tend to remain loyal to the state to begin with. The 0.01% who have the technical capability to do something like build a unidirectional transceiver from parts and deploy it in a way that it won't easily be detected are a small enough group that they can be written off. It's the other 99.8% whom they're worried about and against whom censorship regimes have the best overall efficacy.
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
