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

Guntur Wiseno Putra <> Mon, 30 December 2019 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DBE120106 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 V0fegh3Cso5n for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D3B11200B6 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b18so23267685otp.0 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:36:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/8q0FHWdJB2Keuk/eBfmJcOdUuteKcvhm64T45L8zgA=; b=kMll+4hQNQIcoz9L46McIFGANkC9uDGIYGL+89ZcJcWpr3u+CwVmhucv5Nhne2EegP AodOloDP1ZBbnvTFNsGeCpqNVa4jjEK877WX/X3aL8l34WgyeTQqQkZ7rEUX/Nhr6ZuN +rpiOKg/FI9+Ymfk1jFD/QBFR2kuvB/zjuTu75BFLCZIBi1voj8MhFll5NGxrctvUtsn gPmbFmmy8Io9RB+x44+amGpaQ7i/N0nMKB2kh1cVPEGQq7wgWBu8q6cm0pnIexF3dX8i S+eRhDM36oxdGBmC6K1GzZjvuqTXKLBYTF0g99PHMbXBGcCmpYiotlsohKuc5hwN/X9p 517A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/8q0FHWdJB2Keuk/eBfmJcOdUuteKcvhm64T45L8zgA=; b=X9dh5urNCrSPdKmLBVPk6fEJT7C6ZZGpUl9Ssd8jhzbbJbVj+25SWz5aQ6CIEyjdeT bucK6uaNB8HGa1ve3fJCzAdKJ+jWXra/WYYFksUmpPB9df0v9jvqBy0X0BSSPAfKdOlT AYa8BPKB1K71oB2aOWE2xz5d9x1XUINZDm6hypsoG1S6RLf2qK0N4ogNQzG+guKKGCA9 5u53CGCrE2N5JAU30YZlzCy1d8txnTv6MfbnM4Pa6ijC2ne7d6mrm0ZZLrLxH2EGfXb3 Trq7s3HvAtKO1NQ60ti1LzZ15m/yDxPQw6MXOE2+awiNEH3f10JjGckKBDSCh9ndXNmx mQPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX062HtLBIVbffhKnXW0HChs4LwtklNQ0h4E2yHDX+E9iWcJW21 xzpWCMZBiUJ5S6vyIWJyCUtsGaCEfebaHShvrKg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzTMAw1QiHZybzoc5Ryj4rkLD5eRBXBWWfoW7KR+1mnXCYD32t8S8ZJdWOsvLrAiJ0+NeHbz/y9B1T/W9AbQHo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1112:: with SMTP id w18mr66722036otq.356.1577687812857; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:36:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1155:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:36:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:36:52 +0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>, "" <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6e351059ae611f2"
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 06:36:57 -0000

Dear architecture-discuss
(Brian, Toerless, Stephenond Others),

Readings on this threads inspire me these points below (as I am making such
a struggle to learn on Internet :-))

* A framing (if we may also say similarly, using Derrida's term, a parergon

Why should be...?

Reasonings, approaches, and perspectives: (arrangements of) realities

Values of & meanings of, the fittest: so that things should and may be

Thus, there should be:
interpretations and evaluations by such languages (from the conceptual to
the practical)...

* The framing to apply on Internet and its conditions:

Why should and may be survived? --Internet and its "conditions"
(resilliency, robustness)?

We need of such reasonings (contexts, approaches and perspectives of
interpretations and evaluations) to come to understandings on (realities
of) Internet and its conditions (among others is resilliency and

Interpretations and evaluations socially and technically... Here we concern
with lingual translations between the social and the technical... used in
composing such architectural programmes on Internet...

For example: if we accepted meanings and values of Internet conceptually as
such that it has been part of half of the world populations' everyday life
-'words made in a report by an International governmental organization--
then technically we may say " Internet continues to grow and diversify,
with a realistic prospect of billions of nodes connected...". Then,
architectural programmes on Internet may about "local requirements,
behaviours, and semantics...". (B. Carpenter and B. Liu's "Limited Domain
and Internet Protocols")

Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Senin, 30 Desember 2019, Brian E Carpenter <>

> 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.
>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list