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

Toerless Eckert <> Sun, 29 December 2019 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29CD01200D7 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:40:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9zbEkW4Sve69 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB5081200CD for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDE7548045; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:40:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 05506440059; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:40:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:40:06 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: Niels ten Oever <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 23:40:13 -0000

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.