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

[Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>]

Dear architecture-discuss
(Stephen and Others),

When we think about "cyberspace", and also "real space", of communications
networks, of societies, and about engineering Internet architecturally,
this quotation concerning with "design" --as the term has so far been part
of this thread of discussion-- may be inspiring:


Navigating strategically across multiple planes requires practitioners to
sense and discern connections and patterns in what is taking place, to try
to understand the underlying dynamics and interdependencies between
elements, to appreciate the diverse possibilities of what is happening and
what might happen, and to respond by designing actions which align with the
intentions and values of the agreed longer-term strategic trajectory (Hames
2007a, p. 114), but which are contextually appropriate, not copy/pastes of
other, previous or “best” practices (Hillier 2011, p. 508).


(being cited from J. Hillier's ".. Strategic Spatial Planning" I mentioned
in the previous message)



Note: I have just realized that the 1st message of this thread of
discussion --Stephen's one-- was sent by [e-mail]. Has
been there a transfer from @ietf to @iab in managing the
architecture-discuss list --while my accepted registration to
architecture-discuss@ietf was in March 2019...? I make also BCC for this
message to [e-mail]...


Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra


Pada Jumat, 03 Januari 2020, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
menulis:

> Dear architecture-discuss
> (Stephen and Others),
>
> When we think about "cyberspace", and also "real space", of communications
> networks, of societies, and about engineering Internet architecturally,
> this quotation concerning with "design" --as the term has so far been part
> of this thread of discussion-- may be inspiring:
>
>
> Navigating strategically across multiple planes requires practitioners to
> sense and discern connections and patterns in what is taking place, to try
> to understand the underlying dynamics and interdependencies between
> elements, to appreciate the diverse possibilities of what is happening and
> what might happen, and to respond by designing actions which align with the
> intentions and values of the agreed longer-term strategic trajectory (Hames
> 2007a, p. 114), but which are contextually appropriate, not copy/pastes of
> other, previous or “best” practices (Hillier 2011, p. 508).
>
>
> (being cited from J. Hillier's ".. Strategic Spatial Planning" I mentioned
> in the previous message)
>
>
>
> Note: I have just realized that the 1st message of this thread of
> discussion --Stephen's one-- was sent by [e-mail].
> Has been there a transfer from @ietf to @iab in managing the
> architecture-discuss list --while my accepted registration to
> architecture-discuss@ietf was in March 2019...?
>
>
> Regard,
> Guntur Wiseno Putra
>
> Pada Jumat, 03 Januari 2020, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
> menulis:
>
>> Dear architecture-discuss,
>>
>>
>> "Communication" may be understood as "society" and Internet is about
>> networks of human communications...
>>
>>
>>
>> If it matters --and perhaps others: (1) UN's inititives for Sustainable
>> Development Goals by supports of ICTs --including Internet & (2)
>> engineering Internet's (architectural) resiliency (*), one closed enough in
>> J. Hillier's "Strategic Navigation: a Multiplanar Methodology for Strategic
>> Spatial Planning" I mentioned above is "sustainability" referring to
>> longer-term plans.
>>
>>
>> "Multiplanar theory offers the potential for multiple plans (Hillier
>> 2007, 2011) :
>>
>> – several (or one collectively preferred) trajectories or “visions” of
>> the longer-term future, including concepts towards which human and
>> non-human actants “desire” to navigate, such as sustainability (Deleuze and
>> Guattari’s planes of immanence) ;
>>
>> – shorter-term, location-specific detailed plans and projects with
>> collaboratively determined tangible goals, for example, for city centre
>> regeneration, provision of affordable housing and so on (Deleuze and
>> Guattari’s planes of organisation)".
>> (*) Apologize: I rendering "resilience" without accessing Stephen's
>> document directly at github --there was an icon feature I could not access
>> by clicking (the triple lines in up-right corner) and I wandered if there
>> were guidances to use the website...
>>
>> Regard,
>> Guntur Wiseno Putra
>>
>> Pada Kamis, 02 Januari 2020, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
>> menulis:
>>
>>> While I share Lucy’ points, wrt connectivity of Outpost/similar
>>> platforms back to the centralized DC‘s - noone is reinventing the
>>> wheel(there’s no value), outer encap is IP,  do we really care what’s
>>> inside?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 12:11, Dan York <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Brian,
>>>
>>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Cherry-picking from your interesing message:
>>>
>>> What if there winds up being a lack of diversity of paths through the
>>> “open” and “public” Internet? What if increasingly traffic winds up
>>> traveling through these proprietary global networks (to which you need to
>>> pay to connect and through that gain permission to send traffic - and only
>>> to that company’s platforms)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this really new, from a technical viewpoint?
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m not sure. I haven’t yet worked enough personally with these newer
>>> networks to be able to fully answer that question.  My knowledge comes from
>>> reading articles, going through tutorials, listening to talks / podcasts,
>>> and experimenting to the degree I can. But I don’t operate a network or
>>> data center where I could join in to one (or more) of them… so I have to
>>> defer to those who have that kind of more direct experience.
>>>
>>> It reminds me very much of the early 1990s, when policy based BGP4
>>> routing first became a thing, and acceptable use policies were applied by
>>> NSFNET, ESNET, and their equivalents in Europe and Asia. That was all about
>>> money, of course, except that it was public money.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting thought. I guess the difference I could see was that in
>>> those days the networks were all using the same open standards-based
>>> protocols, even with AUP’s being applied. They were all weaving together a
>>> common network fabric, from what I saw as a network user at that time.
>>>
>>> With these newer private networks, they may - or may not - be using the
>>> same protocols that the public Internet is using. You may or may not know.
>>> (And from a purely operational point-of-view, you may not care… a main
>>> reason for using the private network is to have low-latency connectivity to
>>> applications or content.)
>>>
>>> In at least one of the cases (Amazon Outposts), my understanding is that
>>> the company comes and installs hardware in your data center that then
>>> connects your network back to Amazon’s AWS network. Is it all running open
>>> Internet protocols? Or are there proprietary protocols (or “extensions”)
>>> that are making the connectivity that much faster/better?  (And I honestly
>>> do not know.)  Do you only have connectivity to their platform(s)? Or do
>>> you have wider connectivity?
>>>
>>> To me, this is part of the question - do these newer, global, private
>>> networks *increase* the overall resilience of the open, public Internet? Or
>>> do they *decrease* the overall resilience of the open, public Internet? Or
>>> do they not really have any effect? Or is it too soon to tell?
>>>
>>> Interesting times,
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>>>
>>>