The Internet: Not as Decentralized as It Seams

While the Internet is often hailed as a decentralized and democratic system, it is not immune to the presence of central authorities. This article explores the ways in which central authorities play a pivotal role in the functioning of the Internet and challenges the notion of its complete decentralization.

Central Authorities in Internet Protocols

The Internet relies heavily on protocols that presume the existence of a central authority. These central authorities help manage and distribute key resources that are essential for the functioning of the Internet. Some of these resources include:

MAC Addresses: Media Access Control (MAC) addresses are unique identifiers assigned to network interfaces for communications on a local network. These addresses help in the identification of devices and the routing of data packets. In this process, central authorities play a crucial role by assigning and managing these unique identifiers. IP Addresses: Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are unique markers that identify computers and other devices on the Internet. The distribution and management of IP addresses are controlled by central authorities, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other organizations. This centralization is necessary for the efficient allocation and management of these vital resources. Domain Names: Domain names are essential for ease of use and identification of websites. While domain names can be registered by anyone, the root domain names are managed by a central authority, specifically ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). BGP Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs): BGP Autonomous System Numbers are unique numerical identifiers assigned to networking entities (ASes) for the purpose of routing traffic. These numbers are also managed by central authorities.

These central authorities are responsible for connecting resources with specific identities, which in turn are provided by state authorities. The reliance on central authorities in the distribution and management of these resources highlights the decentralized nature of the Internet is not as complete as it may seem.

Secure Communication and Certification Authorities

Secure communication on the Internet is fundamentally dependent on a set of certification authorities and the SSL/TLS X.509 specifications. While these certification authorities are technically configurable, the default design and usage of these protocols make certain aspects problematic. Here's how central authorities impact secure communication:

Limited Trust in Particular Authorities: SSL/TLS and X.509 specifications often limit trust in a particular authority to specific domains. This means that even if an authority's trust is compromised in one domain, it does not necessarily mean other domains will automatically trust that authority as well. However, X.509 name constraints can help in specifying which parts of a certificate should be trusted. Verification of Identity: Obtaining and maintaining an identity through multiple certification authorities can be a complex and burdensome process. This is because each authority may have different requirements and standards for verifying the identity of the entity seeking certification. Relaying Trust: Trust in a certification authority can be inferred from multiple signatures. This practice can be problematic because it relies on multiple parties to ensure the reliability of the authority, and it does not always provide a clear path to root the trust.

These aspects demonstrate that while users and applications can technically configure trust in different certification authorities, the design of SSL/TLS and X.509 protocols makes real-world implementation challenging, and often, the results are less than fully trustworthy.

Challenges to Complete Decentralization

The reliance on central authorities in Internet protocols and secure communication challenges the concept of a completely decentralized Internet. While decentralization is a core principle of the Internet, the need for central authorities in resource management and secure communication means that the Internet is a complex interplay of decentralized and centralized elements.

User experience and security are often prioritized over a purely decentralized model, which limits the Internet's potential for complete decentralization. Central authorities, while controversial, are essential for the efficient and secure operation of the Internet today.

Conclusion

The Internet, despite its origins and ideals, is not as decentralized as it might appear. The need for central authorities in resource management and secure communication introduces a level of centralization that conflicts with the decentralized nature of the Internet. Understanding this complexity is crucial for comprehending the true nature of the Internet and for developing future technologies that might aim to achieve a more decentralized internet.

Given the various challenges and the role of central authorities, the question of whether the Internet will ever become completely decentralized remains open. Meanwhile, efforts to enhance security, manage trust, and streamline resource management continue to evolve, shaping the future of the Internet.