[e2e] Time for a new Internet Protocol
rbriscoe at jungle.bt.co.uk
Mon May 21 16:10:27 PDT 2007
Going back to your opening posting in this thread...
At 15:57 15/05/2007, David P. Reed wrote:
>I call for others to join me in constructing the next Internet, not as an
>extension of the current Internet, because that Internet is corrupted by
>people who do not value innovation, connectivity, and the ability to
>absorb new ideas from the user community.
So, how do we make an Internet that can evolve to meet all sorts of future
social and economic desires, except it mustn't evolve away from David
Reed's original desires for it, and it mustn't evolve towards the desires
of those who invest in it? Tough design brief :)
My sarcasm is only intended to prevent you wasting a lot of years of your
life on this project, without questioning whether the problem is with your
aspirations, not with the Internet...
Perhaps it would help _not_ to think of suppression of innovation as a
failure. Innovation isn't an end in itself. People don't want innovation to
the exclusion of all else. People want a balance between innovative new
stuff and uninterrupted, cheap, robust, hassle-free enjoyment of previous
Surely the real requirement is for a distributed computing internetwork
that can be temporarily or locally closed to milk the fruits of an
innovation without having to be permanently and ubiquitously closed. That
is, locally open or locally closed by policy control. That's a heroic
research challenge in its own right - and not impossible - here's some case
studies that have (sometimes unconsciously) achieved this:
A desire to embed _only_ openness into the architecture to the exclusion of
thinking how to do closedness is the problem, not the solution. So, I for
one won't be joining you in this venture, even though my initial reflex
action would be (and always was) openness. I'd ask you to reconsider too.
If you disagree with this 'Tussle in Cyberspace' argument, I think you
ought to say why, as I've not heard a good argument against it.
>To save argument, I am not arguing that the IP layer could not evolve.
>I am arguing that the current research community and industry community
>that support the IP layer *will not* allow it to evolve.
You don't need to start out deciding that, whatever the solution, it won't
be an evolution from where we are. That doesn't need to be decided until
you know what the solution might look like.
>But that need not matter. If necessary, we can do this inefficiently,
>creating a new class of routers that sit at the edge of the IP network and
>sit in end user sites. We can encrypt the traffic, so that the IP
>monopoly (analogous to the ATT monopoly) cannot tell what our layer is
>doing, and we can use protocols that are more aggressively defensive since
>the IP layer has indeed gotten very aggressive in blocking traffic and
>attempting to prevent user-to-user connectivity.
If this is what you want you don't need a new Internet. You already have
the power to encrypt and the power to be aggressively defensive with the
current Internet (as your TOR and Joost examples demonstrate).
You want to use the infrastructure those nasty routerheads have invested
in, presumably to benefit from the network effect their investments (and
your previous inventiveness) helped to create. And if they try to stop you,
are they not justified? What is the difference then between your traffic
and an attack - from /their/ point of view?
Or are you claiming a higher moral right to abuse the policies they impose
on their networks because you have honourable intentions, in /your/
opinion? Universal connectivity isn't a human right that trumps their
policies. It's just something you (& I) care about a lot. Isn't this
getting close to an analogy with animal rights activists conspiring to kill
Reversing this, what if someone launches a DoS attack against an unforeseen
vulnerability in your new Internet? Would your architecture never allow it
to be blocked, because that would damage universal connectivity?
I think you need to take a step back and reconsider the aspersions you're
casting on routerheads. They understand the value of universal connectivity
too. But they also understand the higher value of some connectivities than
others. Given the tools they have at their disposal right now, the best
they can do is block some stuff to keep other stuff going. It's as much the
fault of you and me that they have no other option, as it is their fault
for blocking stuff.
You are blaming operators for acting in their own self-interest. Shouldn't
you blame the designers of the architecture for not expecting operators to
act in their own interests? Again, what is your argument against
'Tussle in Cyberspace'?
More information about the end2end-interest