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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 30 December 2019 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DC41200E6 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:05:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Uv7UZem6Yjqr for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::642]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D1A41200CD for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a6so13286485plm.3 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:05:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HCIwTv7dKwfpEKhAJIH6FCcWO8YmR/L3mCbQAh2fW6U=; b=tbSirqlP+80hFbwJz57o+O0HHj85/4mT/1CmrEDaVNTJSP1MmDIbwCFCBihE8GpDPr meSKMuPMZBZoOKAOcsi3mb2uvurLfc8/qy0DD/4jV3GjZmlZGRN1hXEFSVGRXuAxNEo+ Eqzo5lfDuXtqUJW/ZYpbqKWD7LUTJG+L16etYDbqXe9y89YqcuPWJ5jwkzW6bD4EDuS2 OKmCGGBiPkjbK7WrMkMqanFgvO5cTMldKdTdVHBc2hbb3pQZwInLGE2AwIEUuHXjMI0/ mvIgSJJocwcq8oTl113dKsdryEoqauww1/y0RILeNg/kxPTXEnacbKhpv2oqATj0jFmt QL1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HCIwTv7dKwfpEKhAJIH6FCcWO8YmR/L3mCbQAh2fW6U=; b=J+M2BXvyi2WvUc3UrsJw2T4baIQP0Ml5rlEfiP5ROMUExtt1jSYOA/1gqkUZMfTSoV EQcJ3JNaETec98VJS03E9xOA0Tqn+xXfsXs77QuojRV9bpyTqFIQMqQAEY3qJPpAI00N V9GsUcjuItS9j/Ui3PyTSlS87vvUY5AKcVLUMRLSSabw9XxPbdpnIfDEtJAo60hZJRSI QP7L2wAkvd4duzpI721lk2AMkQlqk+ixWi/wWFJVK3VpahUmDdCE+iVFPt/P+jl935GA iA/BDZjvx0GLuweBoSGxsDyai9zfPkzH3ai6LL0xqJEVQng3PNNMBimbA6uSQtx0vfTE R0ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpIRt3yK0L7Y2rfRjezk3HTz53Sn1N9Nz7TUDs5dMasWQO7nh1 EHeF9yNfvkstVCztisdkB7HuyadB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx78aK0mYWLL1GoUlGEnG1JlQPIG7OflW8fgFW9j4W1LqPm9VAFE6oLtLlSuFrZdBwjuweNkA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:145:: with SMTP id em5mr41635977pjb.20.1577667899299; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l2sm21972961pjt.31.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:04:58 -0800 (PST)
To: Toerless Eckert <>
Cc: Niels ten Oever <>,
References: <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 14:04:53 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 01:05:02 -0000

On 30-Dec-19 12:40, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:38:09AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> However, resiliency doesn't seem to me to require a discussion of values. It's a very clear technical requirement on its own. Surviving human error, equipment failure, natural disasters, political interference, and acts of war might each generate different resiliency considerations.
> Germany seems to think that its good for resilience and cost reduction
> to be able to source oil from all places it can, including russia (nordstream 2).
> The USA claims values against that and is hence fighting it.
> To make a more technical _networking_ resilience argument: In design of
> resilent network paths, one key ask is to have non-single point of failure
> in forwarding/control-plane code-paths, aka: diverse router vendors paths.
> But there are also government regulations based on "values" requiring
> network paths not to pass through specific vendors equipment or certain countries.
> Aka: You are grasphing for straws if you try to declare something to be
> beyond being abused as an argument about values. And remember that
> (plastic) straws too are outlawed in certain countries because of values.

True. But that doesn't prevent us doing the analysis of resilience issues
without making political assumptions. If it comes out that the best form
of resilient routing would be some form of Byzantine routing with no fixed
paths between end points, that would be a valid technical conclusion.
(Whether that particular approach has been seriously analyzed since about
1962, I don't know.) If we could design a resilient unambiguous namespace
without a central authority, that would also be a valid technical conclusion
that might prove troubling to ICANN.