Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core

Scott Shenker <> Wed, 12 August 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CB13A1285 for <>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SQfja7zMuqR for <>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::443]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95AFE3A1273 for <>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k18so1017125pfp.7 for <>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4NwXI8Sk5yTJYCaMOVJvd9YHi+W9SrT4JQ7sy3og0i8=; b=zNvhZ/9ENfeBa3vXSC78TkVx85jNGiOH5GIBazwuBFz9WUIq5lQF2XStWjpWvRqnNz CAYlLFXYCKOC1QLP3kgZhmBfxGKsG8qkghHRtWvBRi8jrJ3HF+PFkA+ejZtyJlidlP2D qwIAxFOsOjEfcvZdYruE7oXL0X9T5QvYlaKMvmppAZo+QQGUbqtS+716yASwahSa6uQH F8gh9kwMNxCdCWeU8B6pv2JsKcJsDE7zj2sRjNVo2Ul2Cgh7q9AvAmzKjy4U9Caw0Xux m30VqMRyPnNI6ume/+0GJSsg1fIaFAxjWzsTiajN49HkPgOBSOFIpOan4p3QBUPdOUZg w6bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4NwXI8Sk5yTJYCaMOVJvd9YHi+W9SrT4JQ7sy3og0i8=; b=N/de8bnaVVB65PBPXQOWOQL+ztLZB8X7HZe1rK3Y2XGplrDxmxMb/1b56776z2btWo rDSON8N4zsozl39B14DAxRyzzzY4i4gkfg4Nk0Yki5Tp55PD/FXVph8Q4d4dweDeEBZp Yc4Pb+K7c6fv/d2HmaNFavyqcLe7GhKZMhuTL1KprkWYqxekAkP7x7BRAQjb3sbG8Ixg ez6zje6qObOIeDjHYqTl1NMmsZqNeUqY8WoLuFRq66Z+z60AUWCPplM1vghZsRUbXvPe QBjAMFMELhQnI02owBiY+9TiZRUXKXAF8n+VUAIbjrDzcEEkMbMJ+TFiNNMGY0xhy1m6 kcSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Lzp3KrTKMX6yY50D2Uj1c7i3as0mMFP+3+T2VxinWSpfsOJZ2 Jfy7saJD29XiEDjqkimuVuuaOg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyenAUfnRN6O3UHUpiyhIqLWl3qwp/Rw69fBzYoklev3j/3pOmiJsFeJR9XGAwk9H0YYjw7Qw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:517:: with SMTP id 23mr4907521pgf.377.1597238372866; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g8sm2421583pgr.70.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Scott Shenker <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:19:30 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 13:19:35 -0000

> On Aug 11, 2020, at 3:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> (Bcc to the IETF list and Cc to the architecture-discuss list)
> Thanks for circulating this.
> On 12-Aug-20 06:50, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Scott Shenker et al. just presented a pretty thought-provoking "public option" for the Internet's core backbone at SIGCOMM:
> Hmm.
> "The technical Internet community has long embraced the notion
> that the Internet should be application-neutral; that notion later
> became known as network neutrality (a term coined in [57])."
> I dispute that assertion. "Network neutrality" is a slippery term,
> but certainly there is antipathy between some interpretations of it
> and RFC2474 and other QoS technologies.

We did not mean to imply that the two are notions are identical, and indeed we discuss the no-QoS interpretation of network neutrality later in the paper. However, I think it is undeniable that conceptually the notion of network neutrality is the descendant of application-neutrality, which was the intent of this sentence. I apologize if our writing was unclear.
> "We choose instead to initially create the POC’s backbone network out
> of a set of leased lines, and use the interconnections to one or more
> ISPs as a fallback if the POC’s backbone does not have sufficient
> connectivity."
> That sounds like a fairly accurate description of the Internet in
> about 1995, when ISPs had emerged but the de facto backbone was still
> largely non-profit and/or settlement-free. And note that non-profit
> transit networks existed then, and actively migrated to a for-profit
> model after about 1998. See for
> an example.
> So I think history would likely repeat itself if this proposal was
> adopted.

The world of today is very different from what it was in 1995, particularly in terms of the market forces at work. We discuss our reasoning for why our proposal might become a reality later in the paper (in a section called “Are We Crazy?”), and I would be interested in your reaction. Do you think the market forces we identify might lead to a different result now?

More generally, as an academic working on issues related to the Internet, I view it as my mission to identify designs and paradigms that would make for a better Internet, and to explore whether there are plausible paths to such eventualities. We recognize that our proposed change is a long-shot. In fact, almost all attempts to effect large-scale changes in the Internet (whether its design or its structure) are likely to fail.   My responsibility as a researcher is to not let that stop me, and my mission as a member of the Internet community is to try to make such changes happen, despite great odds. I hope that people on this list and elsewhere read this paper in that spirit.


> Maybe it's time to update
> Reactions to that draft from the then major transit ISPs were interestingly
> negative.
>   Brian
>> If you scroll down (or go to, his recorded talk video gives a high-level overview.
>> (PDF and video *should* be open access and work for me, but you never know with the ACM...)
>> Lars
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list