[e2e] Time for a new Internet Protocol

[Lynne Jolitz]

Wonderful discussion Tom! And very apropos.

One additional item. You are presuming a comparative that tussle works symmetrically. This doesn't necessarily have to be. Tussle can have a hidden unfair advantage element depending on who begins the game, for example. Symmetry in this case is not maintained. There are other examples.

Physics is a good teacher.

Lynne Jolitz.
----
We use SpamQuiz.
If your ISP didn't make the grade try http://lynne.telemuse.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org
> [mailto:end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org]On Behalf Of Tom Vest
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:09 PM
> To: Bob Briscoe
> Cc: David P. Reed; end2end-interest list
> Subject: Re: [e2e] Time for a new Internet Protocol
> 
> 
> Being a big fan and frequent user/abuser of the tussle concept, let  
> me be the first person to observe some obvious problems that follow  
> from using it as a normative principle:
> 
> 1.  Although the concept of tussle is inherently recursive, it's  
> typically only used (e.g., by network architects and systems theory  
> people) to discuss the upper elements of the protocol/service stack.  
> Too often people forget, or maybe fail to notice, that the Internet  
> itself only exists in its "current canonical form" in places when &  
> where a prior/foundational tussle over control of communications  
> facilities/infrastructure inputs resulted in certain sorts of  
> outcomes. In places where all or almost of the interfaces are hidden/ 
> controlled by a single monolithic entity (e.g., like hierarchical/ 
> horizontal infrastructure segments within a territorial monopoly  
> PSTN), tussle may still exist, but it has approximately zero impact/ 
> significance to outsiders.
> 
> 2. As soon as "tusslers" become aware of the idea, they tend to  
> incorporate it, rhetorically if not operationally, into their future  
> actions. Granting that I am no game theory expert (and would love to  
> hear a better informed comparison here), this seems like just another  
> example of an iterative bargaining game, ala the Prisoner's Dilemma.  
> An appeal to the reasonableness of a "tussle-friendly outcome" is  
> just as likely as not to be a gambit to "win" a larger piece of the  
> pie... unless maybe the appeal is coming from someone you already  
> trust for some unrelated reason.
> 
> Bottom line: tussle provides a great descriptive framework for  
> understanding how, when, and why things change (or don't change), and  
> would be a fine architectural guide for a monolithic Supreme Being  
> who has prior knowledge of "what good would be good" to select as the  
> criteria for winning in any particular tussle instance -- but as soon  
> as you have two Semi-Supreme Beings they end up stuck in the same  
> bargaining game described so crudely above...
> 
> Regards all,
> 
> TV
> 
> On May 21, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> 
> > David,
> >
> > 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 innovations.
> >
> > 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:
> > <http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/B.Briscoe/present.html#0406pgnet>
> >
> > 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 vivisectionists.
> >
> > 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'?
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> 
>