[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Toerless Eckert]

Thanks, Brian

Quick browsing makes me think that doc is quite orthogonal and the
"On the Internet" terminology could well be added to it given how
it really only would talk about a host as an IP L4 endpoint and
its properties and not delve into the more complex issues of higher
layers. If i consider the specific of many companies
work computers, then that work computer can easily be "On the
Internet" with its L4, but i as a poor user subject to all
type of crazy policies and restrictions am certainly NOT ON THE INTERNET
with it ;-))

IMHO, your example: 
- one gateway that is "On the Internet"
- one gateway that is "On the IPv6 Internet"
- if you have set up your filtering rules accordingly,
  you also have three more computers that are "On the IPv6 Internet"

At least can't come up with a clean way trying to figure out
how to define a sane entity that expands across both IPv4 and IPv6,
Maybe John can...

Oh, and congratulations for being back On the Internet ;-)

Cheers
   Toerles

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:47:39PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Toerless,
> 
> Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky
> question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for
> consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation
> you put on the phrase "network neutrality".
> 
> Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many
> hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that
> was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000".
> Today??
> 
> In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on
> running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three
> others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the
> routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed
> IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 2018-10-19 11:03, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as
> > a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless
> > someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear
> > definition ha always annoyed me.
> > 
> > I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts
> > that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure
> > connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document
> > definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT,
> > application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't
> > be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the
> > variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet".
> > 
> > Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ?
> > None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers
> > but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker.
> > Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ?
> > 
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:40:40PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Joe,
> >>>
> >>> Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on
> >>> the Internet" back in the 80s.  But today, I suspect the vast majority
> >>> of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet"
> >>> wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria.  So they must be all on
> >>> something else, if not the Internet?
> >>
> >> Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves. 
> >>
> >> The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Meanings of words are determined by how people use them.   I think "the
> >>> Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>> /Jack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/04/2018 07:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org
> >>>>> <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP
> >>>>> addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use
> >>>>> in the public Internet.  But we were connected to the Internet through
> >>>>> computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP,
> >>>>> etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g.,
> >>>>> Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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).
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage.
> >>>> It???s misleading advertising.
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>
> > 
> >> _______
> >> 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.
> >