<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/07/2020 12:46 am, Dave Burstein
via Chapter-delegates wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAUuzMQ3OqTwZK57xgYGjNjbj_NzLf-Dh6X90zi5tNbbd-+6Lg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">Paul </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">I completely agree with your reasons to think
it a mistake, which is why I'm bringing it here. Impact will
be 5-10 years out, but network decisions are being made today
and that will be too late in most of the world.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">What I bring to the discussion is information
on what is happening, not what should happen. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">Deutsche Telekom, Telefonica, Verizon (Mehmet
Toy wrote most of the ITU architecture document) and the
Chinese billion users are very powerful. The vendors are
backing them. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">They smell many billions in revenue. They also
have an attractive story, "guaranteeing" performance. (In
practice, that's unnecessary. My Netflix works fine.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I completely get that - but if we're right, taken to its ultimate
conclusion, do we need to care? what are the actual consequences?
Yes, its a mistake - but its their mistake, not ours, we'll still
be here when they fail, no? Or do you genuinely believe there is a
risk that vendors will stop making 'real IP' kit, and the telcos
will block 'real IP' from working?<br>
</p>
<p>If we're right, whatever they come up with isn't going to replace
TCP/IP, it'll be yet-another-underlay carrying TCP/IP on top.</p>
<p>Vendors are backing it, because they want to sell more kit -
thats obvious and transparent self-interest. We won't convince
them they won't sell more kit.</p>
<p>But the carriers - will they *buy* more kit, if they can be shown
economic studies that show their wide-eyed forecasts are bunkum,
there is no willingness-to-pay, they'll make no more $billion than
if they just build normal networks and provide 'real IP', and may
well burn their shirts off their backs and go broke if they spend
so much more with no extra return? <br>
</p>
<p>And if they do follow this foolish path - what are the
consequences? A generation of engineers get employed, a lot of
boxes get manufactured, but don't get purchased, vendors make
losses. Or they are purchased, a lot of networks get deployed,
that are commercial failures when nobody wants to pay for the
expensive features, the shiny networks are used to carry TCP/IP
anyway, telcos make losses, maybe one or two providers go broke
and are taken over. A lot of money is splashed around in R&D
for little actual return than employment.<br>
</p>
<p>If DT, Telefonica, Verizon, and a bunch of vendors, lose their
shirts building new networks and kit where the new functions
aren't used in practice, *why do we care*?</p>
<p>Would we be having this existential crisis debate if they called
it 'New ATM' instead of 'New IP' - are we reacting to the name? If
they called it 'New ATM' instead, would we chuckle knowingly, and
tell them to go right ahead, the Internet will still be here when
they run out of $ and realise the error of their ways, thanks for
building some foundations without completing the house?</p>
<p>(Devils Advocate remember! - I want to tease out a really good
*why we should care*, and 'they're going to waste $billions of
their own money' isn't a really good reason in my book)</p>
For the record, I *think* we care because (variations for personal
preference):
<p>1) by calling it 'New IP', it sows confusion with 'real IP',
which distracts and divides and hampers our program for bringing
universal Internet connectivity to everyone at affordable, if not
as close to free as possible, by keeping things as simple as
possible. We'd prefer it was called something that didn't include
'IP' in it, and don't purport it is related to 'Internet'.<br>
</p>
<p>2) the carriers will want to make a commercial return on their
R&D and shiny new expensive boxes, so will be pricing services
higher than they otherwise would need to, which will hamper takeup
and use by the less-well-off which is contrary to our mission</p>
<p>3) the ITU process for development is harder for people to
contribute to, longer to achieve anything, etc - all the normal
arguments why IETF processes are better at achieving outcomes than
ITU processes</p>
<p>4) if 'deterministic' is the goal, the vast resources, energy and
shareholder funds that will be wasted would be better utilised all
pulling in one direction, and be contributed to the IETF and 'real
IP' R&D instead.<br>
</p>
<p>Paul.</p>
<p>(rest trimmed)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="86">--
Paul Brooks
Chair, Internet Australia
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul.brooks@internet.org.au">paul.brooks@internet.org.au</a>
mobile +61414366605
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.internet.org.au">https://www.internet.org.au</a></pre>
</body>
</html>