[e2e] Fie on future internet

rsofia@inescporto.pt rsofia at inescporto.pt
Tue Mar 2 22:56:43 PST 2010

Hello Jon,

my 2cents on the "Future Internet" buzz...

In addition to what has been discussed for the past 5 or 6 years,  
during ARCADIA, FIRE, etc., there are in fact some paradigm changes  
which are worth to be explored. Some initiatives (like EIFFEL) are  
trying to do that in a constructive way, by bringing together people  
:) that can ignite new topics and - the key point to mention - by  
asking the community to comment on such topics. Topics such as  
virtualization impact, SDR, control by the operators and the way this  
is being changed by user-empowered are IMO worth discussing. They are  
relevant and not well explored.

As for FI stuff that may serve as an example to other fields...but  
hasn't this been done before? I recall from my previous affiliation  
(access vendor) that FI was the chicken of the golden eggs, in  
particular for access vendors which, in the beginning of the current  
crisis had to try to re-invent themselves and their focus. So most of  
them turned to "megacities", to energy-awareness, etc., and tried to  
apply networking and the Internet to these new goals...where exactly  
is the difference to what triggered this thread ?

So some hints on how to solve this FI "issue"/fashion:

1. Differentiate (provide a categorization) between what may really be  
a teaser topic, and what for sure is not...Energy-awareness that is  
not green, or let's say energy awareness that just looks into making a  
box green for sure is a turn-off.

2. Stop calling it "future". The future is now (and it seems it has  
been since 55 :-D ). It's the Internet evolution anyway and we are  
already living it whether we like it or not. Why not call it  
disruptive Internet architectures/services? Isn't this what FI is all  
about if we consider a non clean slate approach? the fact is that we  
have a few services and architectures which disrupt Internet's  
operation, Internet stakeholders, as well as Internet basic  

3. try to understand which topics may be true paradigm shifts. What is  
here being named as "decentralization" and which seems to me to be  
"user-empowerment" (decentralization is simply a way to say that some  
control functionality is moving from common providers to users) will  
no doubt provide paradigm shifts, from an architectural, e2e perspective


On 03/02/2010 11:40 AM, Djamel Sadok wrote:
> SMALL Change --> Big leap!
> The future internet is nothing but the same as the current one with few
> twinks - small changes that may have big (business or technological)
> impacts. No one is expected to bank or coordinate worldwide big changes.
> It is about being disruptive. Just like the human brain, it still
> maintains the basic old parts while adding new (smarter) layers.
> There will be no day that one will say, today we have upgraded to the FI.
> Someone once said, too much government is bad government. That is the
> case of the Internet and a lesson that governments may learn from it.
> People will always come up with new ideas and if they work, others may
> adopt them. Current FI R&D projects will never be "the" solution.
> What worries me about the Internet is its actual centralization. Take
> away few search engines and most users won´t get their work done.
> Hierarchy as Jon talked about is good, but I guess he meant it at the
> structure level. This hierarchy is missing where it equally matters: the
> content and service levels.
> May be the notion of federations, contexts, turfs, societies, or
> whatever you call them, is the way ahead to break away from such
> centralized business model. If like nature, the internet favors the
> fittest, then we are doomed with a centralized structure.
> Governments, transport systems, banking systems, "telecom systems",
> education systems,  and others, like to think they have control and
> achieve predictability. We are lucky they did not design the Internet
> because they would have used to it to gain more control and kept to
> themselves as a secret advantage or tool.
> The internet design community saw design ideas as more important than
> control and today the internet may be seen as the first real autonomic
> system.
> Many big players are today involved. Some are making money and others
> see their shares dissipate. The big ones seem to dictate the changes.
> They facilitate what they want users to have (make ebook readers, take
> fiber to your home to sell you content, ..) it would be interesting to
> evaluate to what extent their silent decisions impact the FI. My opinion
> is they are the ones who are designing it right now.
> The internet borrowed a great deal from areas such as economy,
> transport, etc. to build its inner working mechanisms. Those systems
> have been around longer than the internet. I would suggest that if those
> areas are going to benefit from the Internet
> it won´t be at the structural level (routing, buffering etc..), but
> rather at the community, cooperation, security, information, levels. The
> internet shows that:
> 1) a simple trust model may work and give its participant many benefits;
> 2) even when there are no guarantees by the members, the overall system
> may still deliver;
> 3) when each of us contributes with a small resource, the overall system
> may outperform any big system;
> 4) people like free things even if they do not work well;
> etc.....
> To complement Jon´s thoughts, "higher level" Internet lessons may be
> best to use in other areas rather than its underlying mechanisms.
> DJamel
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Jon Crowcroft
> <Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk <mailto:Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>     I spend a lot of time reviewing
>     stuff about the future internet
>     then its raining on a sunday afternoon
>     so i wrote down what i really think:-
>     http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/out/fie.pdf
>     <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Ejac22/out/fie.pdf>
>     then i played the guitar to clam down
>     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJD5_nX5RE
>     j.
> Crucial public systems deliver food, energy, transport,
> housing and so on. Three systems seem like low-hanging
> fruit when it comes to re-application of the ideas behind
> Internet:

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list