[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T
Christian
cdel at firsthand.net
Fri Jul 17 03:49:55 PDT 2020
Yes this is not about sanctifying particular protocols whether it be
"IP" or "TCP" or even "QUIC". This is about basic principles and
properties needed for an open Internetwork for everyone to enjoy and
participate through permissionless innovation.
C
On 16/07/2020 15:03, Paul Brooks via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> Let me take a Devils Advocate position for a moment, preaching to the
> converted...
>
> On 16/07/2020 9:10 am, Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Dave - are we forgetting the impact of the general public user, and
> application deployers, and 'the market' inertia in all this?
>
> We - and 'they' - used to have such a deterministic network system. It
> was called ATM. Before that we also had a deterministic network system
> - clear channel SDH/SONET transmission services. For a while there
> were parallel global and national ATM backbones and IP backbones.
> There were IP-over-ATM backbones which were supposed to provide
> determinism and time-base slicing. There were 'ATM Switched Virtual
> Circuits' that never actually switched in practice. Over time the
> Internet and IP became dominant. Why?
>
> ATM commercial services didn't die off because they were inherently
> technically inferior (although they were), they died off due to lack
> of customer demand, which lead to a lack of revenue. ATM gear was more
> expensive, services were more expensive and inflexible, and actual
> 'deterministic' services even more so - the user-base voted with their
> feet and wallets and ignored 'proper deterministic' expensive networks
> in favour of those good-enough-in-practice more flexible cheaper
> systems. It didn't matter how 'superior' it was touted, nobody wants
> to expend big funds building infrastructure that has no customer demand.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> There is now an enormous installed base of IP-based applications and
> systems, developers who understand how to build applications that
> communicate with IP, investment in codebase that relies on sockets,
> ports, IP addresses and name resolution - heck, we haven't been able
> to replace IPv4 with IPv6 in *two decades*, and thats without any
> concerted pushback. For anything to be deployed inside a decade, it
> will need to be standardised, ratified, built into routers, debugged,
> gather commercial acceptance, AND have some form of
> translation/convergence shim invented so that three decades of
> operating systems, services, browsers, chat apps etc don't need to be
> thrown out the window. Whatever comes out it won't 'kill off TCP/IP'
> until a decade after it is built into native Windows, Linux, IOS and
> Android drivers AND all the applications people use today. Otherwise,
> whatever 'they' invent will end up being an expensive set of
> deterministic switched-virtual-circuit layer1/layer2 network, on which
> 'the market' and customers will run TCP/IP as an overlay, because
> nobody in user-land will want to re-invent the application wheels, or
> the entire ecosystem that it supports.
>
> Carriers might believe they will be paid extra $$$ and $billions for
> SLAs and guaranteed performance, but beliefs don't make it so - we can
> point to decades of actual measured customer behaviour, from the
> failure of ATM to why so few customers ever buy 'business grade'
> services even when they are available, to why so many people take
> slower roads to bypass a highway with tolls.
>
> One thing I know - we won't 'win' if we frame our arguments as
> 'defending TCP/IP and the Internet'. The moment we talk of 'defending'
> something, others will wonder why we're trying so hard to defend
> something if it is so obviously superior. We won't 'win' if we focus
> on better technicals, or more open development methods. We won't 'win'
> if we treat it as a adversarial 'fight'.
>
> The best argument I've found against the 'telehealth needs guaranteed
> QOS networks' is to quietly ask the person whether, even if such a
> network existed, they would be happy going under the anaesthetic on
> the table knowing the surgeon was on the other side of the country,
> given how frequently their mobile phone drops out and how often she
> reads about networks being taken offline by trench-diggers - and how
> comfortable she thought health insurers and courts would be with a
> 'QOS guarantee certificate' from the carrier. And how comfortable the
> network owners will be if telehealth is the only lonely use-case for
> the expensive shiny network, because everything else that doesn't need
> the QOS guarantees is on a cheaper parallel competing network.
>
> We *may* head it off, if we can highlight that all history shows that
> proper determinism is uncommercial - the extra $billions they dream of
> isn't there - even if they build something out of non-IP, unless it is
> priced at Internet commercials or cheaper, it is likely to be an
> expensive, embarrassing white-elephant with no customers.
>
> We *may* prevail if we approach it as 'helping them to avoid their
> embarrassment'. Risk of embarrassing/noncommercial expensive failure
> is a better motivator for no-progress and for programs being quietly
> abandoned than the prospect of a fight.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:29 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy
>> <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:newIP-discussion-paper at isoc.org> or post to the
>> discussion-papers at elists.isoc.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
>> and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
> --
> Paul Brooks
> Chair, Internet Australia
> paul.brooks at internet.org.au
> mobile +61414366605
> https://www.internet.org.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
--
Christian de Larrinaga
----------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200717/def681a5/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list