[irtf-discuss] 202101172217.AYC Re: [Internet Policy] Renew Your Commitment to the Internet ...

"Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen@avinta.com> Mon, 18 January 2021 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <aychen@avinta.com>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346603A09C6 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:28:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=avinta.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 lG3kIyrCD5Ta for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx22-1.lowesthosting.com (mx22-1.lowesthosting.com [23.111.133.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4BF3A098C for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:28:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=avinta.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID: References:Cc:To:Subject:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=I0blK0IAz2XWGjEwD/EYlHBT+xCFq9WxVcMKcU5jlRg=; b=e8QOce9wnY/eqdrsmxSSJBH5WP UcnSvL9w2tyMyxsStFCOVcVrUBMC500NMV6XPV0c/3PsSZ+4wbucU2kW1xkTJig8C/jVBqACFheCp lS2NSrzImtflTnKgEOIbkXUd5nhlLSL2t1QJvpVVLTo6DgvBDu4XjCQWak1Lx+lx9YLUGz9hNSsef g8tserrEl8WJ47pcUmPBJ1rSUP45VDlb2GhIoBrjk5FRDe0Oy7xNtmKlzUhxx7LDAflLiLOHJtAdu s1YcoF7C8NOml/pjfRdsKvPkX7OB5osHy7fOLXlucdB4XHGqQ1b2wE0Uj2i3lZzASZdl1edvzH2un vLpDStaQ==;
Received: from cpe-24-193-161-143.nyc.res.rr.com ([24.193.161.143]:64853 helo=[192.168.1.4]) by mx22-1.lowesthosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <aychen@avinta.com>) id 1l1XNO-0007Ye-Ku; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:27:45 -0500
From: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen@avinta.com>
To: Dean Norris <dean@norrispty.com>, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr@riseup.net>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <AP2021@isoc.org>, ISOC Internet Policy <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>, IETF discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, IRTF discuss <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, IGF governance <governance@lists.igcaucus.org>
References: <R1e7lKk6RV2NYSb_ok_TeQ@ismtpd0098p1iad2.sendgrid.net> <5b576b12-e973-e4cd-3870-450d2f6bbf44@riseup.net> <ANu50rb6_HY2LzRak58huFNqLY8c0oC-oxi01DyTinIE8cabrOChAHbxpdZF6PrW-XPMprR-hcYL8kT8kDNAtD-lBFYq4cekieZY7DVrG2k=@norrispty.com>
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
Message-ID: <41206dd6-9043-0e2d-81f8-d454c86df8db@avinta.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:27:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ANu50rb6_HY2LzRak58huFNqLY8c0oC-oxi01DyTinIE8cabrOChAHbxpdZF6PrW-XPMprR-hcYL8kT8kDNAtD-lBFYq4cekieZY7DVrG2k=@norrispty.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EDE496D9F605FCA6211C75B7"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 210118-0, 01/18/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - mx22-1.lowesthosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - avinta.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: mx22-1.lowesthosting.com: authenticated_id: aychen@avinta.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: mx22-1.lowesthosting.com: aychen@avinta.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/65UY1FzVpauvUhKgu3NKDSej7ow>
Subject: [irtf-discuss] 202101172217.AYC Re: [Internet Policy] Renew Your Commitment to the Internet ...
X-BeenThere: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:28:09 -0000

Dear Dean, Willi, et al.:

0)    Happy New Year! The GeoLocation terminology caught my attention. I 
would like to share a couple of findings from our work.

1)    To evaluate the Internet performance, GeoLocation technology may 
be characterized in terms of its physical grid resolution. The finer the 
grid, the less the user privacy. On the other end of the spectrum, the 
coarser the GeoLocation grid, the better the user privacy. However, at 
the same time, the latter elevates the system vulnerability to cyber 
attacks because the perpetrators also become harder to track down. This 
is natural science. We can't change this generic system characteristics 
by marketing type of arguments.

2)    Due to the interest for more privacy, the general trend of 
Internet GeoLocation consideration has been coarser grid resolution with 
dynamic identification assignments. After many years of going on this 
track with cyber attacks growing without the end in sight, however, we 
really should review this practice from the ground up, now.

3)    Most people are with the belief that dynamic addressing (including 
privatization of the addresses, etc.) schemes improve the privacy. There 
was a research paper (see URL below) that found most law abiding 
Internet users, even when using dynamic and/or mobile addresses, could 
be easily located utilizing available tracking tools. On the other hand, 
the perpetrators could take advantage of the same technology to 
successfully evade the detection. Their basic message was, trusting 
dynamic addressing schemes for privacy might be an ostrich belief. 
Although it was an almost two decades old study, I have no doubt that 
the same "cat vs. mouse" game is still actively going on, judged by how 
pervasive that businesses have been able to target potential customers 
by physical locations practically in real-time, while cyber attacks 
appear to be unstoppable.

https://www.ccsl.carleton.ca/paper-archive/muir-computingsurveys-09.pdf

4)    As to "... a hard coding of IPv4 Class system, that was abandoned 
...   ", the advance of science and technology is largely due to the 
willingness to question established facts and to revisit failed 
experiments. It is always prudent to utilize newly acquired knowledge 
and discovered resources to enhance a system, even if it was an approach 
that was judged inappropriate in the past. We need to keep an open mind 
for the best solution in the interest for a better future Internet, 
especially since some of the current approaches have shown limitations.

Regards,


Abe (2021-01-18 11:26 EST)


On 2021-01-14 21:09, Dean Norris via InternetPolicy wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:56, willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy 
> <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org 
> <mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, we must move away from the privatization of addresses and
>> names. My proposal for this: 128 bit IP address (like IPv6), divided
>> into 2 x 64 bit addresses for global and local. The global address rests
>> on the GeoLocation of 2 x 32 bit angles from WCS84. The local address
>> structure is insignificant in the global and must be understood only in
>> the local network.
> Seems like a hard coding of IPv4 Class system, that was abandoned 
> (except for Class D/E addresses). And forcing IP to match local 
> coordinates seems too restrictive for general use and growth.
>
> I am not sure of the problem you are solving.. but if it is reserving 
> “IP addresses” for future growth in geolocations that have little 
> usage based on their projected use. Perhaps there are other answers 
> that offer continuous optimization of resources without need for 
> change or upgrades.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> d.
>
> —
> Dean Norris
> e: dean@norrispty.com
> m: +1 415 860 3326
> l: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deannorris
>
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:56, willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy 
> <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org 
> <mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> i agree with you and your presentation in many points. Especially when
>> it comes to the potentials of an InterNet. I focus my disagreement on 2
>> issues:
>>
>> 1) There is no Corona/Covid pandemic, only a plandemic, i.e. a staged
>> Corona theater.
>> 2) There is no InterNet on our planet, only TnterStar systems.
>>
>>
>> to 1) Corona/Covid
>>
>> This topic is simpler for this receiver circle. From the regional
>> statistical data for all regions on our planet it is true that there was
>> no over-mortality compared to the last years. But for this we cannot use
>> absolute numbers, we have to look at the percentage per age group.
>>
>> And there are no Sars-Cov-2 infections, because a Rt-PCR test cannot
>> detect infection and infectivity. For that, any person with symptoms of
>> disease must undergo a clinical examination.
>>
>> Today there is no flu and influenza. All respiratory diseases today are
>> declared as covid-19.
>>
>> And we have no Covid deaths, because with very few exceptions in
>> Germany, there are no autopsies worldwide that can prove an actual
>> Sars-Cov-2 virus, if such a virus exists at all, and can justify it as
>> the cause of death.
>>
>> to 2) InterNet
>>
>> The name Internet goes back to "Inter-connection of local Net-works".
>> And there is no such thing, because there are no local networks either.
>> Strictly speaking, each community, small or large, must build its own
>> local and autonomous network, which then connects to its neighbors
>> around it. If the communities do this, an InterNet can be created.
>>
>> Furthermore, we must move away from the privatization of addresses and
>> names. My proposal for this: 128 bit IP address (like IPv6), divided
>> into 2 x 64 bit addresses for global and local. The global address rests
>> on the GeoLocation of 2 x 32 bit angles from WCS84. The local address
>> structure is insignificant in the global and must be understood only in
>> the local network.
>>
>> Accordingly, only ccTLDs are used in the DNS system and managed 
>> regionally.
>>
>> The problems of your InterStar system are due to the private and
>> governmental control and occupation of these systems and can only be
>> solved if the communities generate a telecommunication in the form of a
>> TnterNet themselves.
>>
>> with many greetings, willi
>> Asuncion, Paraguay
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 14.01.2021 um 10:44 schrieb Andrew Sullivan, Internet Society:
>> > from Internet Society has sent you an email but it appears that 
>> your email client only allows plain text.
>> >
>> > Please copy and paste the following link to view the contents of 
>> this email:
>> > http://portal.internetsociety.org/622619/bulletin/ViewSent/...
>>
>> Dear willi,
>>
>> The beginning of a new calendar is often a time to start afresh, and to
>> look forward with hope and anticipation. For many, this year is perhaps
>> not quite so fresh. Many of us are living with various degrees of
>> political uncertainty, historical injustices, or both. Many of us are
>> still uncertain of the long-term economic effects of COVID-19. And
>> almost all of us remain under the shadow of the pandemic itself, with
>> anticipation of vaccination battling with anxiety from new variants and,
>> in many places, indifferent management of the crisis.
>>
>> Yet there is reason for us to look forward with hope, and to renew our
>> commitment that the Internet is for everyone.
>>
>> For perhaps 100,000 years, people have been using tools and symbols to
>> extend our reach, expand our capabilities, and work together to make our
>> societies better. The Internet is a profoundly human tool. It is made to
>> let us communicate and collaborate. And it works! When the pandemic came
>> and we were unable to be together in person we could still reach one
>> another to work, to learn, and to express our love and frustration and
>> loneliness.
>>
>> The Internet made this possible. It did so without any central
>> authority, and without needing involvement from people keen to invent
>> ways to tell the Internet to do what it already does by design. This is
>> the first lesson we, the Internet Society, must take from 2020. The
>> Internet way of networking must be promoted and defended. It works. When
>> we do things the Internet way, we put power and control in the hands of
>> people and communities who can build what they need with remarkably
>> modest resources. With such a clear example of the importance of the
>> Internet, governments and societies around the world are having another
>> look at it. Some of the things people propose would damage or splinter
>> the Internet, or permanently undermine it. Other proposals will make the
>> Internet better for everyone. The Internet Society must encourage
>> proposals that promote the critical properties that give us the Internet
>> and discourage proposals that work against those critical properties.
>> There are people all over the world, private corporations and
>> governments alike, who want the Internet to be turned into a
>> centrally-controlled, tightly managed, but sterile service that would
>> leave all humanity poorer. We, the Internet Society, advocate the true
>> Internet instead.
>>
>> The true Internet brings us to the second lesson from 2020. For too
>> many, the promise the Internet offered was a false one because they had
>> inadequate access or no access at all. This is unacceptable. We must
>> continue our work until every single person who wants access to the
>> Internet can have it. And it must be the open, globally-connected,
>> secure, and trustworthy Internet — the one that does not stop at a
>> country's border or provide access to only selected services. It must be
>> the Internet that invites us to create new possibilities with it.
>>
>> This is what we work for. For 2021 we have produced a plan of concrete,
>> measurable actions we will take in the service of these aims. We will
>> keep working to bring together the people and technology that are needed
>> to give everyone the access they want. We will not stop our efforts to
>> strengthen the Internet — through initiatives that support and enhance
>> its open architecture, and that preserve the model on which it was
>> built. We will redouble our efforts to do more with others, and to build
>> up our community's strength, to bring to reality our vision that the
>> Internet is for everyone. Join us at 13:00 UTC on 28 January, when we
>> will come together as a community to explore this plan.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> President & CEO
>> Internet Society
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
>> -
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: 
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/




-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus