[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Joe Touch]

> On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Grant Taylor <internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

It matters for some services. For example, if you access a web server that gates access by DNS name, then your access will take a hit while the DNS times-out. The same is true for some name-based security tokens.

> 
>> 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.

The requirement is “right to send”, not necessarily that it will get through. The point is that you shouldn’t be harassed as “attacking the network” merely by sending a small number of packets to ANY port or address. IMO, it’s not the network’s job to gate those ports either - port numbers have meaning ONLY at endpoints, so blocking what you think is NetBIOS may be something else (or, more to the point, NetBIOS can be run on any port as long as the endpoints agree, so you’re not “blocking NetBIOS” by blocking port 137, necessarily.

> 
> 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.

Oh, certainly - this list is a set of properties that allow you to connect meaningfully to the public Internet.

Joe

> 
>> Calling that “the Internet” isn’t evolution of terms to common 
>> usage.  It’s misleading advertising.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20181004/aa2bda27/attachment.htm>