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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 01 January 2020 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2919512004C for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:40:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PPKhTvC0FklV for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8D0612000F for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id t101so2614337pjb.4 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 15:40:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=1OWaoCTzxKZIzea9KHsutKkxvhr4MmJCErg4gHGZoco=; b=RJxNJsgCmvyphMrhlRpiGyYeHcEicLurxZbRicC+nOSQPSbCHzOGpD9EFAo3alwGbR cfS6EQmniL/tlEmmyR0pVLFzLUfxaPQOBkCUqkTgYVxGUrrsd7Bntd2qFY/Ot7yBuHhZ fWh4K5vPrGEWFk5R78Obw9SqGS8Kd2dHzEorT2XRUkNXA682oiKGizLVCPqOwKCjeWeG idcYM15ofYZ0bH1FDlrUdAFDqR13RjGZE/tmAIIVTYKr4wPipdW9kne4hxU5GasrMwHv ITUtEPRKBvCWhBLl/MReX9zenKmaMrMYg4MINBKctcSVPh6QydESqBkXeOmKU4VejSrD x0bQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=1OWaoCTzxKZIzea9KHsutKkxvhr4MmJCErg4gHGZoco=; b=pjvDxArboGtxBwu3r/9jrZ2isP2HfJ1cA/pw4GbU8CmW4eeE9ial4JO74eQojXqBoI lw7d6l4y2N46kk2TWHpWucO3i+E/FF1ElhjtqE/nLha1rdXUMhgYigeeTX9yUGb+Cmm7 bFK90YtpMhNOu8om5lSXHpMUW8aCM5BlTCneGQdki+J5w5obujLQ/mXDlMMO5FbwQWCY iI3DvLK94DomghbFhdQORO0OpbMoeEPEmvkr9ij2HHpmkk8o8p9CNz/yNKJzELNUO6z1 jOHXdnGjymidXN/7N1rTkwYKMAS+IcQ0qOtoROC1bWEMoWtzJsT77Pf0omzIlaRPuFoT C1DQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVYyAE1KavJQAkFkZOJSthT3bA4uMBndzKCleuW74s5CbMQMqlJ fX+sVzzJCxGyB7aK470pE0r/SIh4
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwY4QAx5US1n5/RTjYBTyM8Tk9PTKMRdAzcCS4IaTna10/V1mu+ccCq9QE6+jX2OPnWpxxsAA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e2d4:: with SMTP id fr20mr16491453pjb.85.1577922040932; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 15:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.13] (47-36-118-16.dhcp.reno.nv.charter.com. [47.36.118.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l186sm56894157pge.31.2020.01.01.15.40.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Jan 2020 15:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-28FCBC89-F29C-4AEF-BE3E-5E0F0FEFADBE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:40:39 -0800
Message-Id: <6D9C717F-B921-411B-8AAD-67FD47F79047@gmail.com>
References: <A26379AE-E3EF-472A-8927-CE55CF417FEB@isoc.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "architecture-discuss@iab.org" <architecture-discuss@iab.org>
In-Reply-To: <A26379AE-E3EF-472A-8927-CE55CF417FEB@isoc.org>
To: Dan York <york@isoc.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/cmsO1UXFBwlCxetuDigsUwnZDAA>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 23:40:44 -0000

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 <york@isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>  Brian,
> 
>>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss