[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Grant Taylor]

On 10/04/2018 08:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> I would call that “accessing Internet content”, but definitely NOT 
> being “on the Internet” (note: I appreciate this also applies to 
> nearly all consumer access because of NATs).

I mostly agree.

Comments inline below.

> Being “on the Internet” IMO has minimum requirements; I presented 
> these as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004:
> 
> Internet User “Bill of Rights"
> 
> The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting 
> parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, insofar 
> as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other parties. The 
> following is a list of specific rights to that end:
> 
> 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from 
> anywhere on the Internet.

Re: SOHO NAT - I believe typical home users do have access to /a/ single 
""unrestricted (more below) IP.  Choosing to put a NAT in place 
themselves via the SOHO NATing router is their choice.  They could put a 
single machine online using the provided IP and not have the 
restrictions related to NAT.

Carrier Grade NAT is different because it is ISP imposed.  (Insofar as 
the subscriber chooses a plan that is subject to CGN.)

> 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse 
> DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that 
> matches that address.

I have no objection to this.  But I've never heard about this being 
something that needed to be on an Internet bill of rights.

> 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, 
> using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), 
> up to the limits of their local resources and network connection.

I mostly agree with this.

> 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any 
> valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port 
> (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources 
> of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.

I want to agree with this.  But I believe that there are some specific 
types of traffic that the Internet community at large has decided that 
should be blocked in some situations, particularly end user situations.

Specifically:

  · SMTP traffic originating from endpoints not passing through a 
legitimate mail server.  (Common effort to block spam and viruses.)
  · NetBIOS traffic - ports 137, 138, 139, and 445

I frequently see restricting these nine destination ports as egress 
filtering imposed by reputable ISPs.

I do think that ISP subscribers should have a way to get this filtering 
removed, particularly for people / SOHOs running on premises mail 
servers.  -  I'm okay with that being an upgrade from a residential 
service plan to a business service plan.  (Assuming the cost of doing so 
is not tantamount to extortion.)

> 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for 
> traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint 
> regarding violations of any of these rules.
> 
> ——
> 
> Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but 
> undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols 
> themselves. That’s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from 
> still photos taken across the street through a smudged window.

Using IP is different than using / accessing the Internet.  There are a 
number of networks using IP that have zero Internet connectivity.

> Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common 
> usage.  It’s misleading advertising.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die