Re: [arch-d] FYI: closure of the IAB Stack Evolution program

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

When the US regulatory landscape was friendlier to Open Internet ideas,
BITAG (https://bitag.org/) was created to look at related issues and make
recommendations.

Unless you can convince people that this yields shorter ping times for FPS
games or "cyber security!", I doubt that this will get much consumer
traction, except from the subscribers of the IETF mailing list.

That said, my sense is that smaller, regional ISPs (such as the emerging
community and rural electric fiber networks in the US) are actually pretty
protocol-transparent - mostly because they run plain-vanilla configurations
of network routers and don't have the in-house engineering resources to do
fancy traffic management. They also generally advertise themselves as
supporters of network neutrality, partially as a differentiator from their
traditional corporate competitors. Having a "good Internet housekeeping"
badge for them that they can readily self-certify for by running some tool
could be quite useful.

Henning

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 1:30 AM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 26/8/19 07:50, Joe Touch wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 25, 2019, at 12:16 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]
> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some of us who worked on the Open Internet (aka network neutrality)
> >> saw "protocol neutrality" as very much part of the same spirit and
> >> possibly a legal entitlement of customers. And the issue of naming
> >> "Internet access" implying some obligations was also part of the
> >> discussion. Experience seems to indicate that only legal or regulatory
> >> requirements are likely to lead there,
> >
> > That hasn’t been the case for SONET, ATM, or Ethernet services.
> >
> > If we had a clear definition of “ISOC-certified Internet service”, then:
> > a) customers might be willing to seek that
> > b) customers who pay for that have a clear legal path if that’s what was
> > offered and it isn’t true
>
> If one means to get on that path, I'd start with certified
> implementations -- at times, the service is a consequence of this.
>
> One of the most obvious cases is e.g. IPv6 implementations that are
> "IPv6 Ready", but then do an extremely lousy job (see "IPv6 Security
> Assessment and Benchmarking" at
> http://www.ipv6hackers.org/meetings/ipv6-hackers-1).
>
>
>
> >> given that many carriers have no economic interest to do this - and
> >> carrier-grade NATs make it painful or impossible to move beyond TCP
> >> and UDP.
> >>
> >> Henning
> >
> > We could have two versions of service - ISOC-certified true Internet and
> > ISOC-certified translated Internet (the latter so we don’t freeze out
> > carriers to start). People might pay more for the former.
>
> Without giving this a lot of thought, the problem with "certified
> Internet" is that one would expect that to apply to all destinations and
> paths.
>
> When should my ISP start billing me for the "true Internet" service?
> When it works with Google, or with everyone? If the former: Does it
> matter? If the latter: would it ever happen?
>
> (I bet many of us, nevertheless, when prompted with the question of
> which one we want to buy, would ask the question: what can I do with the
> expensive one that I can't with the other? (as opposed to "what one
> could *potentially* do).
>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>