[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Joe Touch]

Interesting and absolutely complex - but perhaps because it takes pains to explain all the varieties of “how” rather than focusing on a much simpler “what”.

IMO, Internet access is defined by two properties, each of which can be “full”, “partial”, or “none”:

FIRST CLASS - Internet protocol participant
	these nodes can participate and Internet protocol network in any role (client, server, peer) for any service AND can reach the root DNS servers

SECOND CLASS - Internet information access
	these nodes can access information provided by any node in set (A), but are not themselves in set (A)

Most home Internet service is “partial SECOND CLASS”, i.e., can’t run as a server at all (so not FIRST CLASS) and some ports blocked for SECOND CLASS.

However, most hosted web servers are “partial FIRST CLASS”, i.e., run as a server but not on all ports (most hosting services block certain ports). 

AFAICT, the only meaningful variants are:
	full first class (which implies full second class too, trivially)
	partial first class (which implies full second class because you can always contact a first class node on at least one port and get access to anything)
	full second class (implies no first class)
	partial second class (implies no first class)
	no access at all

Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself. 
I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots".

I would never say that second class nodes are “on the Internet”, but rather “can access the Internet”.

Joe


> On Oct 18, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> 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.
>> 
>>