[ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet'

[Toerless Eckert]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:11:23AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> > Why introduce partial first class ? Any form of data access to
> > the Internet that does not fully meet the definitions of
> > "On the Internet" is simply "Internet Access???.
> 
> Largely to allow for the case where some ports are blocked and to avoid a debate on ???which ports??? and whether they???re important or not. See below regarding home gateways.

So whats the unambiguous distinction between partial first class and
second class ?

> >> Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself. 
> > 
> > Well, the interesting explanations for laymen are something like:
> 
> To me, FWIW, a layperson only needs to know:
> 
> - can you control your content, how it is served, and how it is logged 100%? (first class)
> - can you get at Internet data managed by others, either reading or writing that data, but not under your control? (second class)

Yeah not very happy with this. Definitely difficult to find the most
simple laymen example of benefits for being "On the Internet" vs.
"Access to the Internet". Maybe:

The Internet is a place of innovation. If you have a computer "On the
Internet" then the only roadblock to partake in a new service on the
Internet is whether your Computer is supported. If your computer
just has "Access to the Internet", then there will be additional
equipment that may inhibit your computer to use the service. For example
if your computer has "Access to the Internet" via a home gateway with
IPv4, your new service may require you to buy a new home gateway,
or maybe there will never be a home gateway through which the new
service will work. If your computer is "On the Internet" because you
use IPv6 across the Home Gateway, there is no such problem.
Of course, most new services try to design themselves so that they
work across all those old gateways and allow use from as many as
possible "Access to the Internet" computers, but that really stifles
innovation, creates security and privacy risks, makes services more
expensive and complex.


> We can???t get down into the definition of a ???host??? for laypeople.

No, not the definition. Just introducing the term as equivalent to
a computer "On the Internet", which IMHO is good enough.

> > A computer "On the Internet" can only extend the Internet
> > to allow more computers to be "on the Internet" if it can
> > become a "Router on the Internet???.
> 
> Strictly speaking, routers don???t need IP addresses themselves (unless they start also acting as hosts, e.g., to participate in protocols for in-band configuration, etc.)

Sure. I didn't say they need IP addresses.

> > A home gateway for example
> > can not do this when it just has IP because then it
> > only gets one IP address and because to be "on the internet"
> > every computer needs its own Internet IP address, the home
> > gateway needs to give private IP addresses to computer behind
> > it, granting them only more limited "access to the Internet???.
> 
> A home gateway doesn???t 'give away' addresses; it translates addresses and ports.

Sure, but it gives the rfc1918 address (e.g.: via DHCP) to the computers
with "access to the Internet".

> Arguably, if the public side of a home gateway has a real, public IP address, then NAT???d devices behind it CAN be ???partial first class???, e.g., for some subset of ports assigned to each private-side host.

See above. Not enough gained IMHO to define this "partial class A"
rarther makes the definition of "On the Internet" unnnecessarily more
complex and soft edged.

> > With IPv6 on the other hand, the home gateway can become
> > a router "On the (IPv6) Internet" and make computers behind
> > it be Hosts "On the (IPv6) Internet???.
> 
> IPv6 alone doesn???t magically allow a home gateway to become a router; this still requires that your ISP not block the addresses of your ???private side??? hosts (which they can do, and I suspect will do unless you pay more money for ??????commercial service???). Yes, the point of IPv6 is to allow that to happen, but ISPs can still interfere...

Sure. Though this was implied by 'can'. Else it would have ben
'can always'.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Joe 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> 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???.
> > 
> > Right
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless
> > 
> >> 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > ---
> > tte at cs.fau.de

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de