[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society information session on "New IP" | July 28, 07:00 UTC & 13:00 UTC

Thu Jul 22 05:25:05 PDT 2021

Ted

Thanks for engaging. I was way over my head talking about this in FG2030,
but no one else spoke up. (I know telco networks, not Internet protocols.)
I was very flattered when Vint and Andrew jumped in and I discovered my
contentions were on target.

You're right that the original FG2030 proposal was ugly in not dealing with
backward capability, i.e. replacing IP. *But that's been discarded since,
which is why I'm trying to make sure that the Internet Society is working
with the current versions of the proposal. *

The *current* version at the ITU does not differ from the IETF in the way
you cite. There are plenty of differences, but if the IETF draft is
implemented the way the telcos intend, it would shift control to the
telcos. It's about extending the QoS in 5G across networks, so the telcos
can sell guaranteed QoS from headquarters in Brussels to a branch in
Naples.

Among those who supported the consensus at FG2030 were BT, KDDI, NTT, China
Telecom, China Mobile, Ericsson, Nokia, and a dozen senior academics.
https://bit.ly/3kNKNDc The respected Mehmet Toy of Verizon was among
the leaders; I like to call this the Verizon Proposal, to avoid looking
like just another American China-basher.

Whether the IP protocol is included is a side issue that the companies
pressing ahead on this have discarded as less important. What they care
about is not protocols control, so they can guarantee QoS and charge for it.

Hank pointed to Marco Hogewoning's RIPE article, which is on target about
the primary issue.

This is much more of a fundamental shift than it first appears to be, as it
would give control to the core of the network instead of leaving it to the
end points.
https://labs.ripe.net/author/marco_hogewoning/do-we-need-a-new-ip/

It's the old Bellhead vs nethead debate, now international.

Incidentally, the ETSI "Non-IP" proposal is moving ahead in
standardization, and does throw away IP to enable cross network QoS. ETSI,
which houses 3GPP and is not just European, is potentially a power player
here and like IETF belongs in the middle of the discussion.
-------------------------

There's a lot more in the IETF draft that is aimed at allowing the current
"end to end" to remain. My take, which includes the above and separate
discussions with Deutsche Telekom & Telefonica, is that the telcos
implementing IETF or ITU will de facto insist their interconnect partners
support centralized control for QoS. To the extent I understand the
engineering, that means the primary networks, at least in Europe, will not
maintain the openness we seek. Yes, Duck Duck Go exists as an alternative,
but Google is dominant.

But Ted and others here understand the technology on a more sophisticated
level than I do.
Dave

p.s Note from the real world. Something like this is going to be
implemented by Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE, the four largest equipment
vendors. China is a third of their market and the Chinese carriers want it.
Ericsson's stock dropped $4B because their China sales were down for
political reasons. The major European & US carriers have the same business
incentives and probably the same requirements.

So whatever we talk in standards, we'll get nowhere unless we find a way to
get the carriers to go along. That might require government pressure or
consumer pressure. I assure you that the management of Deutsche Telekom or
Verizon care more about business than an abstraction like the open
Internet. Discussions of "high order principles" will not influence them.
We have to go beyond preaching to the converted, who are an ever smaller
minority.

pps The IETF draft is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8655/ If someone
could translate it into lay English, that would help the discussion

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 6:05 AM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> The goals of the IETF work around Deterministic Networking are set out in
> RFC 8557; one key passage is here:
>
>   The goals of Deterministic Networking are to (1) enable the migration
>    of applications with critical timing and reliability issues that
>    currently use special-purpose fieldbus technologies (High-Definition
>    Multimedia Interface (HDMI), Controller Area Network (CAN bus),
>    PROFIBUS [PROFIBUS], etc. ... even RS-232!) to packet technologies in
>    general and to IP in particular and (2) support both these new
>    applications and existing packet network applications over the same
>    physical network.  In other words, a deterministic network is
>    backwards compatible with (capable of transporting) statistically
>    multiplexed traffic while preserving the properties of the accepted
>    deterministic flows.
>
> If you contrast this with the FG2030 vision (e.g. in the passages starting
> on page 24 of
> https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/net2030/Documents/Network_2030_Architecture-framework.pdf),
> you'll see a very a different approach, especially in regards to backward
> compatibility and coexistence.   The FG2030 vision presumes a completely
> new Internet architecture as a foundational aspect of the effort.  DetNet
> and the work in the IETF are evolving the network we already have instead.
>
>
> As a result, I do not think deterministic networking in IETF terms is the
> same as the ITU-T effort that Elizabeth will touch on in the presentation.
> They share a focus on precision, but the contrasts are much stronger than
> that commonality, at least in my personal view.
>
> best regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> If we want to discuss the issue, let's use the less loaded term
>> "deterministic networking," which is what the IETF calls this stuff. As
>> Elizabeth notes, China Mobile and friends backed off the "New IP" idea a
>> year ago.
>>
>> What this is about is the telcos - including the big Europeans - wanting
>> to control everything in order to charge more. They promise wonders of
>> improved performance if they are put in charge, which I think is highly
>> unlikely. (Vint has also spoken out.)
>>
>> ISOC needs to keep to the real issues and not get caught up in the cold
>> war.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:30 PM Elizabeth Oluoch <oluoch at isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Dave,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your email. The session next week will touch on some of the
>>> questions you raise particularly around the evolution and status of the New
>>> IP proposal. Our aim is to outline the claims in the New IP proposal and
>>> offer some of our perspectives on the implications of the proposal’s
>>> outcomes to the Internet. We hope that you are able to join.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The New IP related questions in Study Group 13 (Future Networks) and
>>> Study Group 11(signalling, protocols) were not approved as new work items
>>> for the next study period at the December 2020 plenaries of these study
>>> groups. Essentially there would be no discussion on these questions during
>>> this study period which was extended to March 2022. WTSA-20 will be held
>>> March 1-9, 2022. It doesn’t rule out the possibility of discussion at
>>> WTSA-20.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The “New IP” was a set of proposals submitted to ITU-T Focus Group on
>>> Technologies for 2030 (Focus Group 2030
>>> <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/net2030/Pages/default.aspx>)
>>> and TSAG. The proposals can be accessed on the ITU-T Liaison Statement on
>>> the IETF Datatracker here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/.
>>> The documents below are in the attachment section of the Liaison Statement.
>>>
>>>    - Document: “*New IP, Shaping Future Network”: Propose to initiate
>>>    the discussion of strategy transformation for ITU-T”* (TSAG-C83)
>>>    - Tutorial Presentation: “*New IP, Shaping Future Network” *
>>>    (TSAG-TD598).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While the “New IP” term was modified to “Future Vertical Communication
>>> Networks," in ITU-T, the New IP initiative continues to be used outside of
>>> the ITU. Further, there have been several proposals submitted (some
>>> withdrawn) to ITU-T SGs in the early part of this year that reflected some
>>> of the main features/capabilities and, or keywords that were in the New IP
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let us know if you have further question. Feel free to send them
>>> in advance as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 5:20 AM
>>> *To: *Audio Conferencing Conferencing Info <oluoch at isoc.org>
>>> *Cc: *"chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org" <
>>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society information session
>>> on "New IP" | July 28, 07:00 UTC & 13:00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>> I haven't looked at this for a while. Last I heard, the US was blocking
>>> consensus in the Study Group. Has that changed?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, what are the actual proposals we are looking at? In particular,
>>> can you forward the draft that we're discussing or at least the ITU
>>> document number for me to download?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (There were major changes since Olaf last wrote about this. Among other
>>> things, I don't think it's called New IP any longer. ETSI tells me the
>>> Chinese decided to drop the changes to IP but I haven't confirmed that.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Elizabeth Oluoch via Chapter-delegates <
>>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Chapter Leaders,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two years ago, the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
>>> received a proposal to begin work to design a “new information and
>>> communications network with new protocol system” to meet the needs of a
>>> future network - the “*New IP, Shaping Future Network”* proposal*.  *The
>>> Internet Society is closely following developments on “New IP.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please join us for a virtual session on “*New IP” on Wednesday, July
>>> 28, either 07:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC*. The agenda will include an overview
>>> of the of the "New IP" proposal, the main issues in the proposal and
>>> implications for the Internet.  *Please note the sessions will not be
>>> recorded*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Speakers:
>>>
>>>    - Dr. Hosein Badran, Director Internet Growth and Trust
>>>    - Olaf, Kolkman, Principal, Technology, Policy and Advocacy
>>>    - Andrei Robachevsky, Senior Director, Technology Programmes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please register.
>>> <https://internetsociety.wufoo.com/forms/w1ssgl830mkz73y/>  Zoom
>>> details will be sent to registered participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can send questions to the speakers in advance to Elizabeth Oluoch at
>>> oluoch at isoc.org.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elizabeth Oluoch – Do Canto
>>>
>>> Director, International Institutions and Relations
>>>
>>> Internet Society
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210722/a7451d47/attachment.htm>