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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 01 January 2020 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 15EFF1200D7 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 11:12:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 1sQ7IiujpGH0 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 11:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) (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 3CC63120099 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 11:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id r11so20916796pgf.1 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 11:12:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pR9Ustxt5AOoczKn4Ncf6qibu/RojCVAK0LsHNqcYfg=; b=TDiZtM8NPpv6RtPKtCI3shZ3zoKKrLJVHM+urfcuxf6djBVsyqjnAOlYXJiVD5iA2t HkhgGdIp/1NdALl2gbxMJ4tiwHfiO0pFmK8Lezvf+cWT4VGcN8W/LrJLbI5qOzv+VOMX KJNpIiQ0/uFZO9GAlu+NJZrkqfytgRJBWctqroapKNmepQjHDYu1GbxPkscCYUKHEWWC SnFyXNZ/KXkQuDYsUIICkdpjjmrjpoVGK7a7IRtQwdxHPil6kzpgbX8vZx+lr+GGF4G/ aI5ZlaL4t7XfTd+AGVV8L5GaNbxcUnAFQg1+2jnoCkX6Us7MI2j0BevEBe4EwIweCRE3 JrTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=pR9Ustxt5AOoczKn4Ncf6qibu/RojCVAK0LsHNqcYfg=; b=ek9yW0ow0VTCFvKKpg+Nn6LjVXKPDB3M6Bb8wdVDyqfvXdsZ63+v0wJPeTQv2mARsV 3BQiH0t6fYiujGdo6kptK9bVi67rSKccYH5klRx5DFTtrsFXTIZaVzjUW+LKty4xTSND gRxhFh4Wy36ksJwPEuE/Ai73e3C8kbHSY6dumVYjEoR7GRCa6rL/+KWqCOVUQKjej0iF ncGmo4ZD4DNhv1nUlzMPkNA2G97aquRJCnSGKMukoMeNucz+JVpQO/0mHyY8C2JqpAHY KNm9JW1ixg09QabkuHTG/uqpKZPubXhJ0zG0UZzNi2H0tKePHJu49FcLJJvk4j5nFA+4 IBdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVSszO8YlRHpjgWu+6+6jw60q3VaW1e2wS8ZkcG0FSPcFTpRF30 W/B9l+SGGWZCjGt/bL+vEvF2MQYQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxisOAWT5Bgfvjgc1YuHhyu7wn0W+cRN/xNHaK4jVFG1O27G9IdJMYsi7OfyYFAeqX9/WZQ5g==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8193:: with SMTP id g19mr85429848pfi.172.1577905944267; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 11:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (228.147.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.147.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y14sm41468015pfe.147.2020.01.01.11.12.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Jan 2020 11:12:23 -0800 (PST)
To: Dan York <york@isoc.org>, Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net>
Cc: "architecture-discuss@iab.org" <architecture-discuss@iab.org>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <alpine.BSF.2.21.99999.352.1912311910270.24431@hans.rg.net> <7020A5C7-6D06-4D6B-85DD-3FCE9CFC03C7@isoc.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <818e8334-ac5c-76b4-c716-4f8af7229873@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 08:12:19 +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: <7020A5C7-6D06-4D6B-85DD-3FCE9CFC03C7@isoc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/k5CEsUWjgPzAsjYtiW1c507LlCA>
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 19:12:28 -0000

Hi Dan,

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? 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.

Regards
   Brian

On 02-Jan-20 07:44, Dan York wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> Lucy very nicely captured a concern I’d had… upon which I expanded a bit below..
> 
>> On Dec 31, 2019, at 2:27 PM, Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net <mailto:llynch@civil-tongue.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/intarchboard/resilience/
>>>
>>
>> Circling back to the top here.
>>
>> I think this is a fine topic for an IAB program and I took the
>> draft charter to encompass resilience as both a technical and a
>> design problem.
> 
> I also agree that this seems to be a great topic for an IAB program.
> 
>> I am particularly interested in this statement:
>> ----
>> Definition of resilience:
>>
>> 1]  the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape
>>    after deformation caused especially by compressive stress
>> 2]  an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change
>>
>> This program is mostly interested in definition #2.
>> ----
>> I actually have my own concerns related to #1 as well and would hope that this program might consider the warping of the overall Internet model to accommodate currents trends or business practices.
>>
>> As an example - an Internet optimized for the web may not be the same
>> internet that supports real time data collection and shared computation in the context of big science. How do we avoid closing out capabilities as we optimize for others? Narrowing of choices looks like a path to a limited and more brittle model to me.
> 
> I agree with Lucy’s example… and would also note that other sources of “compressive stress” could be the increasing movement of most all real-time communication via voice and video to be over the Internet, and most recently the very large movement of streaming online gaming, which has very different characteristics and stress factors (as noted in recent discussions in the new MOPS working group and the BOF before it).
> 
> I like Lucy’s phrase "the warping of the overall Internet model to accommodate current trends or business practices,” particularly when some of those current business practices may involve connecting networks not only to the public Internet, but also to private, proprietary, globe-spanning networks. 
> 
> For example, at Amazon’s recent re:Invent conference they promoted a way to directly connect enterprise data centers to Amazon’s global AWS network (“Outposts”) and also a way to connect telco points-of-presence to Amazon’s network (“Wavelength”). My understanding is that Microsoft has similar functionality for Azure (“Stack”, I believe) and Google either has or is working on something similar for their Google Cloud Platform. Similarly, large entities such as Facebook and Netflix have built their own global, private networks that interconnect to local data centers (where those data centers are also connected to the public Internet).
> 
> All of these separate, private, global networks are designed to help speed access to content, applications, etc., through caching, “edge” computing, and other technologies. Thinking as a network engineer about running applications in various cloud providers, I can see the value that could be obtained by these connections. And some of these providers are typically promoting these services as providing a low-latency alternative to sending traffic across the public Internet.
> 
> Going back to the draft charter text ( https://github.com/intarchboard/resilience/ ) , I note this:
> 
>> One fundamental pattern contributing to Internet resilience is diversity: for example, diversity of physical links, of peer networks, of paths through the network. Lack of diversity is a key challenge for Internet resilience.
> 
> 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)?
> 
> Given that the Internet has always been a “network of networks”, there have been (and still are) multiple large, global networks to which you could connect your network and data centers. You may, in fact, connect to multiple of those large, global ISPs to have a higher degree of “resilience” for your network. The difference to me is that in connecting to those network providers (and paying to do so), you are connecting to the open, public Internet. 
> 
> In contrast, connecting to these newer private networks gives you only access to the company’s cloud or content platform. It’s not the whole Internet.
> 
> So regarding definition #2, how does this evolution in network connectivity impact the overall resilience of the Internet to recover from issues?
> 
> I think it’s a very interesting question to consider as part of this program.
> 
> My 2 cents, 
> Dan
> 
> P.S. And yes, I’m well aware that some large enterprises also operate their own private, global networks / WANs to interconnect their own data centers - and have done so for many years. I think the difference is one of scale. The new “cloud” providers are operating networks significantly larger than any individual enterprise - and are also encouraging enterprises to move away from operating their own networks and to instead move their networking to these newer networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>