[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T

Thu Jul 16 08:25:05 PDT 2020

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 4:41 AM Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:

> An update here.
>
> In the 1980's and 1990's, the phone companies failed to dominate the
> Internet. Ask Vint or Dave Farber about the "protocol wars." Many of us
> talked about the battle between the Bellheads and the Netheads.
>
> It's back, I believe, although it's the European and Asian telcos leading
> the way, with the Americans quietly cheering them on.
>

We should fight America first, and free 'them' of any misunderstandings
that incline any or any part of them towards the telecom mindset.  Or, go
to Europe first - just a handful of them to deal with - Cisco, Nokia,
Ericsson ????  Maybe tell them that we will stop buying switches from them
if we find it designed for the copper wire?

> I believe that's the purpose of "deterministic networking," which just was
> incorporated by the key ITU Focus Group 2030, defining 6G.* 2030, where I
> am a member, has included the proposals in the final "architecture
> document" that will become the IMT definition of 6G and define the future
> of the Internet. Europe's Non-IP and ITU deterministic networking are
> moving forward. Contrary to *FT* and the handful of other press reports,
> this isn't about China taking over the Internet.
>

This confusion always arises. When a handful of strong-armed business
entities operate in a certain manner of harm, the country (ALL the people
of the country) or the region is thought to be engineering a national or
regional policy for world dominion. In matters related to the DNS and the
global Internet, especially, I have always thought this to be untrue. It is
a handful of bad actors (often not "bad" actors, but short-sighted actors)
operate their businesses in a certain way, which causes the world to
perceive a National or regional design, and from across the seas, the
reaction is national or regional. Deal with the handful of actors, the
world would be a better place to live.  What does it take to resolve the
ITU harm?  Here is the count of the number of individuals we need to deal
with  - the 'owners' of five or six large Telecom companies and firms like
Cisco, Nokia and Ericsson (not mentioned here with any detailed
understanding of their business policies and practices). Talk to them,
convert them to our religion, the world would be a better place to live.

>
> It's about the telcos, European and Chinese leading, taking over to
> enforce Quality of Service, also called network slicing. Cisco, Huawei, and
> other vendors want to sell the more expensive gear.
>
> It's all about money. The telcos think they will make hundreds of billions
> because Internet traffic *needs* QoS. I, and experts like Henning
> Schulzrinne of Columbia, think this highly unlikely. Our voices are drowned
> out.
>

That is what we need to whisper into the right ears.  That all this is not
about fighting child pornography, not about preventing harm to women, not
about making the world secure, but about money.

>
> Slicing is already included in 3GPP 5G standards. Deutsche Telekom
> believes they will be able to guarantee high capacity, low latency service.
> (5G as deployed is ~30 ms latency; the 1-10 ms latency is a fantasy outside
> the lab. Don't believe the hype.)
>
> But what happens if air traffic control in Hamburg (on DT's network) wants
> to coordinate with ATC in Lyon, on Orange/FT. There's no way today to
> guarantee performance across networks, although the IEFT has long had
> solutions. The same problem occurs with multi-player Pokemon Go when one
> player is on DT and the second on Vodafone.
>
> To solve that problem, the telcos want to (gradually) dump TCP-IP in favor
> of a tightly controlled "deterministic network." TCP-IP has proven its
> ability to adapt and scale. I think the efficiency claims will not be
> realized and the cost much higher. In theoretical discussions in standards,
> the new system works perfectly. I live in the real world.
>

The Core architecture is like a divine code that is hard to understand. You
don't heal bruises on your forearm by altering the genetic code of
humanity.

>
> TCP-IP will gradually be replaced by an alternative that is designed for
> QoS/network slicing because the carriers believe they will be paid for SLAs
> and guaranteed performance. This is desired by security agencies and the
> carriers think they can sell it to others. They smell $billions and intend
> to push it through. Like everything else in telecom, the Chinese will be
> the first to a large build, but Telefonica, DT and others intend to move
> forward.
>
> It will take at least 3 years for this to become practical to deploy and
> more likely 5-7.
>
> But if we think this is not a desirable long term future for the net, we
> have to be very public and make the issues clear. Olaf's paper is sensible
> but oblique, and our beliefs are invisible in places like Focus Group 2030
> and the other places - especially 3GPP & ETSI - where decisions are being
> made. (I sometimes speak to it, but have to earn a living and haven't had
> much time.)
>
> Accurate information is not enough to win a political battle with
> literally $trillions of companies and their governments are on the other
> side.
>
> If this matters, we can and must do much more.
>

The Internet Society seemed to define its approach as that of -- >  Reach
the people of the world -- > educate them about all these intricate nuances
-- > cause to enable voices to raise bottom up -- > cause good laws to
happen..  It seems the right way, the right approach, but when the Internet
Society publishes a white paper or a pamphlet, the actors with $trillions
respond with a Virtual Reality magic show about 5G and how it saves the
world's women and children.  So what do we do?

>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:29 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy <
> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:46 AM Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates <
>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Olaf
>>>
>>> We agree on the main issues here, but we need to do a much more
>>> effective job to win here.
>>>
>>> tl/dr unless the issues are important to you.
>>>
>>>  I learned how to win policy issues through 20 years watching silver
>>> tongues like AT&T's legendary lobbyist Jim Cicconi. They approach the
>>> battle by researching carefully "what arguments will persuade the people we
>>> need to reach and they will believe." On telco control, which is the issue
>>> here, we have great pocketbook issues you've noted in your paper.
>>> Complexity and control drive up costs enormously. That's a great reason to
>>> stick with IP - it does a brilliant job adapting. Bob and Vint work is
>>> extraordinary, not just historic.
>>>
>>>    Something like this needs support from far more people than might be
>>> persuaded by *anything* we might say about governance. Very few people
>>> care about ITU vs ICANN or IP vs Non-IP. "Internet governance" issues are
>>> so obscure even tech reporters rarely get them right. No politicians
>>> understand this stuff and 9 out of 10 won't accept some geeks educating
>>> them. As our board member Pepper (bcc'd) often says, "DC doesn't understand
>>> anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker."
>>>
>>>     We need to take a simple, clear position that non-experts will
>>> respond to.
>>>
>>
>> If non-experts are the focus of this exercise,  then please show it all
>> in pictures and moving images.  What is European Non-IP ? What is Chinese
>> New IP? And for context, what is precisely the US battle with China?  How
>> does Europe differ from the US? To the extent that I understand, Europeans
>> and Americans wear the same clothes and speak the same English.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>    - We need to stop referring to "New IP," the Chinese proposal.
>>>    Instead, We should talk about "European Non-IP and Chinese New IP."
>>>    Otherwise, our positions can easily be confused with the U.S. battle with
>>>    China and we will immediately lose much of the audience we need to reach to
>>>    be effective. Someone we both respect in a private note recently said the
>>>    U.S.  can't lead effectively here because it will be dismissed as "more
>>>    anti-China rhetoric" He's right. We need to make clear this is more than a
>>>    U.S. China issue. That's why I'm putting the Europeans first.
>>>
>>>    Even better, we need to find a way to "frame the issue" that will
>>>    advance our goals by getting wider support. To win this, we need to define
>>>    the debate.  Very few people care about ITU vs ICANN or IP vs Non-IP.
>>>    "Internet governance" issues are so obscure even tech reporters rarely get
>>>    them right.
>>>    No politicians understand this stuff and 9 out of 10 won't accept
>>>    some geeks educating them. As our board member Pepper (bcc'd) often says,
>>>    "DC doesn't understand anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker."
>>>
>>> That is right.  "frame the issue", yes, but frame the issue in colorful
>> pictures, for at-a-glance understanding.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>    - Currently, the telcos and suppliers are doing a good job
>>>    convincing some very intelligent people QoS is crucial for things like
>>>    telemedicine and autonomous cars. (The best telecom economist in DC, for
>>>    example.) It also appears obvious to a non-expert that better network
>>>    control would bring down costs. I think those are dead wrong, but people
>>>    are echoing the arguments. How do we answer them?
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, I'm writing this as the "*Telcos want to take over the
>>> Internet and charge more.*"
>>>
>>
>> +1 (that would be an excellent way of reaching the common man and the
>> non-technical policy makers.)  Lynn St-Amour usually explained it by
>> contrasting the way the Internet works with Cable-Telecom pricing model.
>>
>>
>>> Also, the complexity will make the system too expensive  That's not
>>> quite good enough. I care about these issues as they affect the cost of
>>> access, particularly for the less affluent.
>>>
>>
>> Pricing 'Plan's ?   'bundles' ?  Monthly minimum ?  Connectivity or 'Air'
>> time charges ?  Value Added Service Charges ?  Premium Services?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    - We need multiple participants at ITU and ETSI. At the first
>>>    meeting of FG2030 in New York, there were something like 20 from China and
>>>    maybe half a dozen from the U.S. and a similar number from Europe. After
>>>    the New York meeting, the ratio probably got worse. Hamadoun at the 2014
>>>    Plenipot publicly urged Kathy to send more people.
>>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>    Incidentally, at that meeting I was the only person to raise
>>>    anything beyond technical issues like how to deliver holograms. Brazil and
>>>    India then backed my proposal, that one of the "use cases" for 6G in FG2030
>>>    should be delivering systems inexpensive enough for everyone.
>>>    ITU needs civil society and actively encouraged us. ETSI was very
>>>    positive about ISOC in a private conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>    - We lose if this is perceived as U.S. and allies, especially if
>>>    Europe is split. Remember, at least 65% of the Internet (by almost
>>>    everyone's definition except AS) is not in the US and allies. The BRICS by
>>>    most measures now have more connections than the U.S. and Western Europe
>>>    combined. Our work on this should visibly come from a group with Africans
>>>    and Asians prominent. Our board members Olga Cavalli (Argentina)  and Walid
>>>    Al-Saqaf (Yemen) have the right experience. India now has 400 million 4G
>>>    connections, more than the U.S. has people. They would be a crucial swing.
>>>    I can think of an extremely eloquent Indian advocate for Free Software but
>>>    I think the recommendations should come from our Indian chapters.
>>>
>>>
>> India can be a great ally, if some one can speak to India in good, clean
>> English that the phone companies are trying to impress Governments
>> everywhere with rosy jargon.
>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:59 AM Olaf Kolkman via Chapter-delegates <
>>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colleagues
>>>>
>>>> There were some requests for a public and archived space for discussion
>>>> of this paper. We set up a list that doesn’t require ISOC membership to
>>>> discuss this paper (and potential future discussion papers).
>>>>
>>>> Hence a friendly amendment to the text below:
>>>>
>>>> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the
>>>> ITU-T”. Contact the authors directly using
>>>> newIP-discussion-paper at isoc.org or post to the
>>>> discussion-papers at elists.isoc.org mailing list, which is public and
>>>> archived.
>>>>
>>>> —Olaf
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Apr 2020, at 10:22, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> With the usual cross-post apologies[*].
>>>>
>>>> In the run up to the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization
>>>> Assembly (WTSA-20) later this year there has been some discussion about a
>>>> proposal called the “New IP”. It is positioned as a top-down architecture
>>>> to solve a number of use cases that are currently been developed in the
>>>> ITU-T’s Future Network 2030 Focus Group.
>>>>
>>>> The Internet Society is carefully following the developments in the
>>>> run-up to WTSA-20. We are trying to understand if and how the New IP works
>>>> with the Internet as we know it, if it actually solves problems that cannot
>>>> be solved in the Internet, and, if the ITU-T is developing standards, where
>>>> other standards development organizations (SDOs) have change control.
>>>>
>>>> In order to get a sense of the environment we commissioned a discussion
>>>> paper, “An analysis of the ‘New IP’
>>>> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/>
>>>> proposal to the ITU-T.” The paper helps inform us and the broader community
>>>> whilst the public debate around these proposals shapes up. It also aims to
>>>> inform and shape the discussion from the Internet’s Society’s perspective.
>>>> Eventually the debate around it will inform our position and the potential
>>>> further evolution of the discussion paper itself. Note that the paper
>>>> documents the Internet Society’s emerging opinion, but does not represent a
>>>> final Internet Society position. Instead, we intend it as a means to gather
>>>> information and insight from our community on the topic.
>>>>
>>>> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the ‘New IP’
>>>> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/>
>>>> via the email address NewIP-Discussion-Paper at isoc.org
>>>>
>>>> —Olaf Kolkman
>>>>
>>>> [*] This mail has been sent to various relevant mailing lists and
>>>> featured as a blog on the Internet Society website.
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Olaf M. Kolkman Tweets as: @kolkman
>>>> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
>>>> Internet Society https://www.internetsociety.org
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Olaf M. Kolkman
>>>> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
>>>> Internet Society <https://www.internetsociety.org/> Tweets as: @kolkman
>>>> <https://twitter.com/@kolkman>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news>
>>> https://wirelessone.news <http://wirelessone.news>
>>> Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news>
> https://wirelessone.news <http://wirelessone.news>
> Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200716/e5f01590/attachment.htm>