Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 01 January 2020 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4718C120096 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:48:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vmolfl_O-vB5 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0E0812001A for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 12:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.56] (96-64-23-78-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [96.64.23.78]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34F155401C7; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:48:15 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <818e8334-ac5c-76b4-c716-4f8af7229873@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:48:13 -0500
Cc: Dan York <york@isoc.org>, Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net>, "architecture-discuss@iab.org" <architecture-discuss@iab.org>
Message-Id: <82EDC199-A1DC-42AC-BB23-2A738F33A9F9@puck.nether.net>
References: <818e8334-ac5c-76b4-c716-4f8af7229873@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/D9mR3bs0Hh9RJX3gI6-aH7_gTIs>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 20:48:19 -0000

M

> On Jan 1, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Cherry-picking from your interesing message:
> 
>> What if there winds up being a lack of diversity of paths through the “open” and “public” Internet? What if increasingly traffic winds up traveling through these proprietary global networks (to which you need to pay to connect and through that gain permission to send traffic - and only to that company’s platforms)?
> 
> Is this really new, from a technical viewpoint? It reminds me very much of the early 1990s, when policy based BGP4 routing first became a thing, and acceptable use policies were applied by NSFNET, ESNET, and their equivalents in Europe and Asia. That was all about money, of course, except that it was public money.

Many of us operate networks to meet our business goals. I think the issues that arise from that become relevant if one or more players requires certain networks or those one or two players are damaged or fail catastrophically. 

(Operational note: as we have privatized our own traffic we have found the public carriers no longer have the capability and capacity to handle the traffic if we place it back on their networks).