From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 31 16:17:49 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:17:49 -0500 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?12Streams_=236_=E2=80=93_The_Birth_of_the_ARPANET?= =?utf-8?q?_w/Steve_Crocker=2C_Vint_Cerf=2C_Bob_Kahn=2C_Bill_Duvall?= =?utf-8?q?=2C_Len_Kleinrock_and_Charles_Kline?= Message-ID: As these Internet 50 year celebrations got underway, one pedantic party pooper pointed out that the original message sent on October 29 1969 was, in fact, between two computers, not two networks. That would come a little later. Nevertheless it was a great leap forward and, in these sessions, we hear from some of the people who made it possible. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Tuesday December 31 2019, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in the sixth installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming?s ?12 Days of Streams? annual highlights, we feature three streams that celebrated the 50th anniversary of first message sent across the" [image: livestream] Today, *Tuesday December 31 2019*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the sixth installment of the *Internet Society Livestreaming*?s ?*12 Days of Streams *? annual highlights, we feature three streams that celebrated the 50th anniversary of first message sent across the ARPANET, precursor to the Internet, featuring engineers, and *Internet Hall of Fame * inductees, *Steve Crocker*, *Vint Cerf*, *Bob Kahn*, *Bill Duvall*, *Len Kleinrock* and *Charles Kline* in various combinations. The first stream is the 2019 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting in Washington DC '*Celebrating 50 Years Since ?LO?*' in February 2019. The second is a session '*Before the Beginning*' from the UCLA 50th Anniversary of the Internet Celebration event in Los Angeles in October 2019. The third is a LACNIC webinar '*50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s Birth*' from November 2019. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/arpanet * *ORIGINAL STREAMS* *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/arpanet50 * *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50 * *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic * *TWITTER: #12STREAMS #ARPANET #Internet50* *@vgcerf @kleinrock @bobkahn_brand @LACNIC @UCLA* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11641/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Dec 22 04:18:31 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:18:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page In-Reply-To: References: <13af48de-ed48-486f-afc5-0463536c0f95@Spark> Message-ID: Thanks for your responses, but they don't address my question, which perhaps I did not phrase properly. Do you know some good secondary sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history? joly On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 6:49 AM Dr Eberhard W Lisse via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > In my view not. > > And most certainly not in the sense of this mailing list. > > And, in any case, this is not history, but SJW, for which > there are sufficient other fora. > > el > > On 2019-12-22 12:29 , Joly MacFie wrote: > > Is ISOC's history not part of Internet History? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bill Woodcock via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> Indeed, I see no connection with IH. Is the problematic portion the > >> paragraph beginning ?This sale to private equity was concerning to civil > >> society...?? I agree that that?s a bit muddled. > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:35, el--- via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> ?What does this have to do with IH? > >>> > >>> el > >>> > >>> ? > >>> Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 > >>>> On 22. Dec 2019, 09:54 +0200, Joly MacFie via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>, wrote: > >>>> .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. > One > >> of > >>>> the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article > >>>> according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* > >>>> < > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931900997 > >>> > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic > >>>> history* > >>>> < > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931027723 > >>> > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an > >> admitted > >>>> COI. I have now issued an *RFC* > >>>> < > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_Society#RfC_on_proposed_base_version_of_this_article > >> .> > >>>> on > >>>> which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's > >>>> suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, > please > >>>> feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article > yourself. > >>>> > >>>> But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good > >> secondary > >>>> sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's > history, > >>>> please mention them. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>> Joly > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> - > >>>> -- > >>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > > > > > > -- > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) > el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) > PO Box 8421 / > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Dec 22 03:49:21 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dr Eberhard W Lisse via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:49:21 +0200 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page In-Reply-To: References: <13af48de-ed48-486f-afc5-0463536c0f95@Spark> Message-ID: In my view not. And most certainly not in the sense of this mailing list. And, in any case, this is not history, but SJW, for which there are sufficient other fora. el On 2019-12-22 12:29 , Joly MacFie wrote: > Is ISOC's history not part of Internet History? > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bill Woodcock via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Indeed, I see no connection with IH. Is the problematic portion the >> paragraph beginning ?This sale to private equity was concerning to civil >> society...?? I agree that that?s a bit muddled. >> >> -Bill >> >> >>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:35, el--- via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> ?What does this have to do with IH? >>> >>> el >>> >>> ? >>> Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 >>>> On 22. Dec 2019, 09:54 +0200, Joly MacFie via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>, wrote: >>>> .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. One >> of >>>> the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article >>>> according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* >>>> < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931900997 >>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic >>>> history* >>>> < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931027723 >>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an >> admitted >>>> COI. I have now issued an *RFC* >>>> < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_Society#RfC_on_proposed_base_version_of_this_article >> .> >>>> on >>>> which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's >>>> suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, please >>>> feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article yourself. >>>> >>>> But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good >> secondary >>>> sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history, >>>> please mention them. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Joly >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Dec 22 02:46:04 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Bill Woodcock via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:46:04 +0100 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Let me clarify my question: do you have a problem with the description of current events, or of history? Either way, since you?re calling for action, could you be more specific about what you?re asking for? -Bill > On Dec 22, 2019, at 11:30, Joly MacFie via Internet-history wrote: > > ?Is ISOC's history not part of Internet History? > > > >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bill Woodcock via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> Indeed, I see no connection with IH. Is the problematic portion the >> paragraph beginning ?This sale to private equity was concerning to civil >> society...?? I agree that that?s a bit muddled. >> >> -Bill >> >> >>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:35, el--- via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> ?What does this have to do with IH? >>> >>> el >>> >>> ? >>> Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 >>>> On 22. Dec 2019, 09:54 +0200, Joly MacFie via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>, wrote: >>>> .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. One >> of >>>> the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article >>>> according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* >>>> < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931900997 >>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic >>>> history* >>>> < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931027723 >>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an >> admitted >>>> COI. I have now issued an *RFC* >>>> < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_Society#RfC_on_proposed_base_version_of_this_article >> .> >>>> on >>>> which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's >>>> suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, please >>>> feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article yourself. >>>> >>>> But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good >> secondary >>>> sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history, >>>> please mention them. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Joly >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Dec 22 02:29:10 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 05:29:10 -0500 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page In-Reply-To: References: <13af48de-ed48-486f-afc5-0463536c0f95@Spark> Message-ID: Is ISOC's history not part of Internet History? On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bill Woodcock via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Indeed, I see no connection with IH. Is the problematic portion the > paragraph beginning ?This sale to private equity was concerning to civil > society...?? I agree that that?s a bit muddled. > > -Bill > > > > On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:35, el--- via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ?What does this have to do with IH? > > > > el > > > > ? > > Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 > >> On 22. Dec 2019, 09:54 +0200, Joly MacFie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>, wrote: > >> .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. One > of > >> the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article > >> according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* > >> < > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931900997 > > > >> . > >> > >> So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic > >> history* > >> < > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Society&oldid=931027723 > > > >> . > >> > >> There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an > admitted > >> COI. I have now issued an *RFC* > >> < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_Society#RfC_on_proposed_base_version_of_this_article > .> > >> on > >> which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's > >> suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, please > >> feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article yourself. > >> > >> But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good > secondary > >> sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history, > >> please mention them. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Joly > >> > >> > >> -- > >> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- > >> - > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Dec 22 02:18:30 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Bill Woodcock via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:18:30 +0100 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page In-Reply-To: <13af48de-ed48-486f-afc5-0463536c0f95@Spark> References: <13af48de-ed48-486f-afc5-0463536c0f95@Spark> Message-ID: Indeed, I see no connection with IH. Is the problematic portion the paragraph beginning ?This sale to private equity was concerning to civil society...?? I agree that that?s a bit muddled. -Bill > On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:35, el--- via Internet-history wrote: > > ?What does this have to do with IH? > > el > > ? > Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 >> On 22. Dec 2019, 09:54 +0200, Joly MacFie via Internet-history , wrote: >> .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. One of >> the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article >> according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* >> >> . >> >> So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic >> history* >> >> . >> >> There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an admitted >> COI. I have now issued an *RFC* >> >> on >> which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's >> suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, please >> feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article yourself. >> >> But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good secondary >> sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history, >> please mention them. >> >> Thanks >> >> Joly >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Dec 22 00:17:31 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (el--- via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 10:17:31 +0200 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13af48de-ed48-486f-afc5-0463536c0f95@Spark> What does this have to do with IH? el ? Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 On 22. Dec 2019, 09:54 +0200, Joly MacFie via Internet-history , wrote: > .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. One of > the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article > according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* > > . > > So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic > history* > > . > > There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an admitted > COI. I have now issued an *RFC* > > on > which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's > suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, please > feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article yourself. > > But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good secondary > sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history, > please mention them. > > Thanks > > Joly > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Dec 21 23:53:38 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 02:53:38 -0500 Subject: [ih] ISOC wikipedia page Message-ID: .ISOC is a little controversial right now, because of the PIR sale. One of the more vocal opponents joined Wikipedia just to rewrite ISOC article according to his POV. This can be seen on the *current version* . So, I tried to improve things by rewriting the page as a *very basic history* . There followed an edit war, from which I had to withdraw with an admitted COI. I have now issued an *RFC* on which is a better version, the current, or my rewrite? However, it's suffering from a lack of responses. If you're a wikipedia editor, please feel free to to go there and comment, or even edit the article yourself. But, more to the purpose of this list, if you know of some good secondary sources, (i.e. not posted on ISOC's website) that cover ISOC's history, please mention them. Thanks Joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Dec 19 16:08:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Levine via Internet-history) Date: 19 Dec 2019 19:08:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet futures list In-Reply-To: <20191219230151.0E86811871C9@ary.qy> Message-ID: <20191220000837.2084911875DD@ary.qy> In article <20191219230151.0E86811871C9 at ary.qy> you write: >>well, if there was "internet-future" mailing list ;-)) > >Perhaps I should just set one up and see if anyone subscribes. I did. Send "subscribe" to i-f-request at lists.iecc.com The web oriented can find it at https://sympa.services.net/sympa To manage lists on the web site you need to set up an account first. Click login at the upper right to make an account. Privacy notice: the list is hosted on a server I physically own and control. I get to see everything. It is in the United States. R's, John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Dec 19 15:01:51 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Levine via Internet-history) Date: 19 Dec 2019 18:01:51 -0500 Subject: [ih] firmware for innovation In-Reply-To: <20191219163336.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20191219230151.0E86811871C9@ary.qy> In article <20191219163336.GF55430 at faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> you write: >On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 08:06:53PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> This is a bit OT for internet history, but perhaps, 10 years from now, >> however the dust settles, perhaps this will be a part of it. > >well, if there was "internet-future" mailing list ;-)) Perhaps I should just set one up and see if anyone subscribes. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Dec 19 14:06:04 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Miles Fidelman via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:06:04 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: It occurs to me that we might want to discuss things we'd LIKE TO SEE, rather than predictions.? And for that matter, projects that we know of / are working on, that might lead in certain directions. Miles Fidelman On 12/16/19 4:15 PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote: > It can be kinda fun to try to look into the crystal ball. > > One thought that struck me a few years back was a recognition that > "The Internet" (with or without capitalization) is rather like the > elephant in the fable about the blind men: it is perceived as many > different things. > > For those of us here "The Internet" may be conceived as a system that > carries IP packets from hither to yon where that hither and yon are > identified by globally unique IP addresses. > > Others may view the net as the world wide web. > > I would suggest that if we asked younger users and engineers that we > would get a rather different answer: that to them the net is composed > of interworking applications like Instagram or Twitter or TikTok. > > From that application-centric point of view things like "end to end > principle" become merely a disposable detail of inner plumbing.? Does > it really matter to Twitter users whether the underlying machinery is > elegant and free of media transitions and proxies? > > And from another perspective I've seeing a lot of movement, often done > under the banner of "optimization", back towards circuit switching > notions - or rather, hybrids in which packet routing is ever more > forcefully constrained into fixed paths (especially for data flows for > conversational audio or interactive video that have severe latency and > jitter constraints.) > > And might one consider the 5G movement (even without millimeter wave > technology) as a new ISO/OSI (but better designed to co-exist with > existing IPv4/6 infrastructures.) > > A few years back I wrote up one view of where the net could be going.? > It was somewhat pessimistic.? However the intervening years have not > adduced much evidence to the contrary. > https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/ > > One of the more interesting aspects of my own delving into Internet > history has been that there were many roads not taken. Some of those > roads could be re-explored.? (My own favorite candidate for that would > be to revisit what the ISO/OSI people did so badly that few > comprehended its value: a persistent session layer above transport.? > Had we had that we would not have had to explore inelegant things like > mobile IP or HTTP/S cookies.) > > ??? --karl-- > > On 12/16/19 10:40 AM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: >> I was wondering why there is no "internet-future" discussion list >> here on elists.isoc.org given how there is an "internet-history" >> mailing list. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Dec 19 08:33:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:33:36 +0100 Subject: [ih] firmware for innovation In-Reply-To: <87fthh2c2q.fsf@taht.net> References: <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> <20191218200316.GC55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87o8w52xfc.fsf@taht.net> <20191219001135.GD55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87fthh2c2q.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <20191219163336.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 08:06:53PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: > > This is a bit OT for internet history, but perhaps, 10 years from now, > however the dust settles, perhaps this will be a part of it. well, if there was "internet-future" mailing list ;-)) [...] agreed. > At one point comcast was retiring their cisco cmtses - and would rather > crush them than dumpster them because of CALEA requirements. I wanted > one of those, bad (they were better than the ARRIS CMTSes in a lot of > ways). Well, if it was not the customer, cisco would have done it for them to avoid impating new product sales by them appearing on ebay. Good companies actually provide documentation to customers which chip carries which information, so customers can optimize crishing down to those components (in the absence of large enough crushers for whole boxes/boards). > > Have lost track of DSL chips. In the past they where awfully feature > > constrained, so no good way to make them do better buffering. > > They don't need anything more than a few lines of code added to keep > their onboard FIFO buffering down to sanity. They end up using less > internal memory, as well, for buffering, that can be used more smartly - > or fit in more code! > > There's a pretty interesting arc vliw cpu in more than a few dsl chips, > it's totally easy to do this... I'd actually made some progress in > reverse engineering one chip at one point but rewriting code that > consists of asm turned into C is something I gave up on after working on > the game of empire, back in the 80s.. (worse, it's a very weird VLIW) > > At its most primitive its merely sizing the internal ringbuffer > by the rate.... > > numbufs = configured_line_rate_per_sec/possible_interrupts_sec; > buffer = malloc(numbufs*2048); // padding needed > > that's it. Tracking bytes on the internal ringbuffer instead of just > packets is vastly better but slightly more code than I care to write in > an email, and managing high and low watermarks a snap once you do that. Been there, done that. The idea to avoid having to fix DSL modems or DSL-modem chips in the router is to do all the right buffering in the router ("home-gateway"), but there is the missing element of signaling from modem to router the training rates (up/down) as they do change. Never managed to get this fixed even when working for the vendor and submitting it as a bug/feaure request even when routers had internal DSL modems where the router had access to training rates with management interface. Oh well, there where tcl scripts to adjust router QoS policy bit-rate parameters as a workaround. > (BQL is a bit more complicated than what is needed in firmware > firmware because it sits in the middle of things, but it's only 50 lines > of code: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/454390/ and it was the recognition that the > dynamic range of "packet" limits was far worse than "byte" limits that > drove it's innovation. Particularly in the TSO age (64-64k "superpackets") > > Instead, in every current dsl or wifi chip there's always a fixed > allocation for onboard buffering designed to overbuffer at the highest > rate supported by the hardware at the smallest packet size. Indeed. Decade long proliferation of packet instead of byte counting at that level certainly ranks up high in sillyness. > Alternatively... > > With valid statistics coming off the chip (and driver), it's possible to > throttle overbuffered firmware, but BOY, is that hard. On the wifi > front, we finally finished AQL "airtime queue limits" last month (it has > been shipping commercially for several years out of tree. As said above, its IMHO not difficult to make the right buffering on the router instead of the DSL modem because DSL is fairly fixed bitrate so prediction of in-modem buffering is fairly easy - training rates and ignore loss of bitrate from FEC corrections (low enough unless you have such a sucking copper that you have bigger problems than bufferbloat). WiFi of course has such a high degree of effective variability of bitrate through retransmissions that i wouldn't count on that scheme to work well there. > The difference was 500+ms of onboard buffering reduced to 10ms (at > this tested rate, 2+ seconds at lower rates), no loss in throughput. > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14OIuQEHOUiIoNrVnKprj6rBYFNZ0Coif > > I just wish I could find whatever dude, now living under a bridge > somewhere, that wrote the dsl drivers for everything, and buy him a > beer. A 6pack later, dsl'd be fixed, at least. Given how DSL is evolving into another market monopolization tool through vectoring i am not that much interested in it anymore. Besides, just having gotten Gbps FTTH with new flexible ducts through the city where fibers can easily be added/pulled/replaced, maybe we do want ongoing pain with copper for the investments into fiber to happen more. Alas, most people do only think about fiber as "unnecessary" more speed and nobody explains their benefits as more flexible, longer-term reusable and easier open-accessed physical infrastructure. > One reason why fiber "feels" so much better than other systems is that > those devices have reasonably small buffers. > > Sonic fiber's network has about 60ms worth of buffering at 100mbit. Interesting. Need to wait for a friend at my place to also get FTTH to run useful tests on that buffering. > Improvements on this we have made *can* be felt by users - not having to > ride the sawtooth > > http://www.taht.net/~d/sonic_106_cake_vs_default.png > > is *nice* but compared to the outrages on other edge technologies... plain > ole fifo'd fiber is enough better. I am not a big fan of the sawtooth burst creation by lame old end-to-end CC. No reason for senders not to do rate estimation based shaping to be friendly to the network. And instead we get aven larger bursts at ABR segment sizes. > Please note we're talking about two things - I am ranting first about > overbuffered unfixable binary blob firmware, embedded in systems that > are otherwise mostly done in software. Once you have got those blobs > to "1 interrupt's worth of buffering", you can do much fancier things > like bql and pie/fq_codel/complicated classification on top with even > the cheapest cpus available today. > > Everything below 1Gbit is fixable if we could kill those blobs. Well, i do of course like the idea of open source reference solutions for anything of relevance. I am a bit unclear, why standard bodies failed to simply mandate appropriate per-hop-behaviors for the buffering. Broadband Forum ? They where/are doing DSL, right ? > ? We need firmware on dsl/wifi/fiber/etc running on a (usually pretty > weak) separate cpu because a central cpu cannot respond to interrupts fast > enough, so it's a realtime requirement that I don't see going away. I do like the idea of SmartNICs, but for speeds up to 1 Gbps, it would be great to avoid the binary blobs they do create. Instead, ARMs start to have all type of additional, differently speed cores. Rather allocate one low-speed ARM core with open source PMD code to (interleaved) service all interface queues. > A modern 802.11ac chip has over 400 dsps running at nsec resolution on > it, also. > > But offloaded firmware doesn't need to do more work than the central cpu > can handle per interrupt it can take. Perhaps this could be an internet > maxim said another way by someone else? Well, there is O(packet-rate), but depending on more advanced QoS requirements, there may be additional O(). But yes, i have little concern about resource requirments below 1 Gbps speed. It is interesting for algorithms we're interested in at 100 Gbps or more and feasibility of certain base algorithms for ASICs. Such as PIFO. But thats of course way beyond bufferbloat reduction. > "offloading too much work to a weaker cpu elsewhere is a > lose, the overhead of interfacing with it is rapidly outstripped over > time by progress in the main cpu" Looking at how you design high-speed SW routers via infras like fd.io gives a good idea what feasible and what not. > (hey! this is now an internet history question! :) Mainframes, for > example DO and did have a lot of co-processors (how many ms of work did > they typically offload?, but so far as I know, most early ethernet > cards had very little onboard for cpu - they basically had a lot of > expensive rf logic and a few filters, but that was it. Yes? Did sun's > 10Mbit ethernet have anything other than that? The fuzzball?) Back in the days (80th/90th), there was a lot of pressure for gigantic packet sizes because especially Cray did not manage to build high packet-rate I/O, or they just did not care. [ Maybe they where busy enough trying to figure out how to deal with the inspirational but misguided approach of putting Unix natively onto their calculator CPU and killing it with that. ] Classical 90th MIC chips had a number of buffers that typically could be configured, forgot the name of the config command in Cisco IOS, but its probably still there (in/out). I may be wrong but i think to remember it was defaulted to 7 at some time but could be set as low as 2 and still get linerate on later CPU routers on all packet sizes. WOuld be surprised if this does not goes back in design to the 80th NICs from Sun. [...] need to spend more time reading up on your URLs. > There's a fight ongoing in the eu over "the radio directive". I keep > hoping the various arguments we made during the fcc fight will win this time. > If not there, then maybe brexit? > > I think the fight with huawei over "security" and trustable code is > deeply ironic - at one point they offered to make their sources > available - only to have folk in the us (that want to keep their lagging > efforts proprietary) They did give source code to UK Gvt. and had it examined. > A good way to restore trust in every stack is to open up the code as far > down as it can go. This, certainly, is one of the things driving the > risc-v effort. The core element of risc-v is not to trust nyone else, but build everything yourself. That works for those who can and know they must. China/USA. EU can, but is to silly to know they must. Rest of the world is back to the base probleem you're trying to solve: They can't so they need to trust someone else and would love to be able to verify. But most likely they don't want to admit to themselves the situation. To complex to solve to get votes. > I agree. Fulcrum (long since absorbed by intel) did amazing things with > async logic that have not been duplicated since that FPGAS cannot do. > > I'm pretty sure async logic is at the core(s) of most AI chips. There's > just no way anything can run as cool as these do without it... Yes. Not enough insight here to know if async is the only mayor difference. I think there is overall a lot more flexiblity in design on ASIC. Not being reduced to combine fixed bilding blocks. I always like to look at the analog computers at CHM down the street ;-) > > My impression was that SmartNICs are having a good business niche > > in servers for stack and acceleration, especially for HW adjacent > > stacks like RoCE and diagnostic/monitoring/clock-synchronization. > > yep, that's why they all got bought up. Now innovation will die. I thought Intel is doubling down with their new line of SmartNICs, maybe i am not well informed, just been looking at it fromt the side. Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 20:06:53 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 20:06:53 -0800 Subject: [ih] firmware for innovation In-Reply-To: <20191219001135.GD55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> (Toerless Eckert's message of "Thu, 19 Dec 2019 01:11:35 +0100") References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> <20191218200316.GC55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87o8w52xfc.fsf@taht.net> <20191219001135.GD55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <87fthh2c2q.fsf@taht.net> This is a bit OT for internet history, but perhaps, 10 years from now, however the dust settles, perhaps this will be a part of it. "Why the internet failed to become a universal transport for voice, videoconferencing and gaming traffic and became a slow, unreliable form of television" - Old Grumpy Guy - ACM-Queue... "Brought to you by GOOGFACE, your source of all the TruNews NOW", 2029. Payment for this article has been deducted from your account and your social credit score adjusted downward automatically. Have a very very nice day, and remember, to keep your consumption of ads up and cigarettes down!" Toerless Eckert writes: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:25:43PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: >> > Hmm. Not sure if its really infeasible to get access to and modify >> > WiFi firmware. I think to remember at least to have been toold that >> >> If you know anyone.... > > Alas, only hearsay. And if youu go in to the smallest vendor > of such chip as a startup pitching them how they could double > their chip sales through alternative firmware in a non-wifi radio > market, thats a whole different ballpark then coming in as a > researcher. Wasn't just researchers. At one point I had the resources of google fiber. No dice on getting source licenses to the core fiber, moca, and wifi blobs. No luck in getting core features in there either... underneath dozens of obfusticating mgmt folk is some poor engineer living under a bridge that wrote the code in the first place... I've also worked with various startups and larger firms (on the wifi front), not even possible to start a negotiation or a price with QCA, or broadcom. It makes me worry of course, that part of the reluctance, must be fear that security holes will be found - or that they are already, intentionally, there. At one point comcast was retiring their cisco cmtses - and would rather crush them than dumpster them because of CALEA requirements. I wanted one of those, bad (they were better than the ARRIS CMTSes in a lot of ways). > >> > wrote modified or their own firmware for better / non-wifi radio >> > solution. But of course i don't know what the licensing conditions >> > where for the API to the chip itself. >> >> I have been trying for 8 years to acquire source licenses for firmware >> for dsl and wifi chips, with no success. I intend to try a lot harder >> in the coming year, persuing multiple companies, and perhaps, even legal >> measures and the FCC. The first generation ax chips and drivers are >> awful - and 5G, worse. > > Have lost track of DSL chips. In the past they where awfully feature > constrained, so no good way to make them do better buffering. They don't need anything more than a few lines of code added to keep their onboard FIFO buffering down to sanity. They end up using less internal memory, as well, for buffering, that can be used more smartly - or fit in more code! There's a pretty interesting arc vliw cpu in more than a few dsl chips, it's totally easy to do this... I'd actually made some progress in reverse engineering one chip at one point but rewriting code that consists of asm turned into C is something I gave up on after working on the game of empire, back in the 80s.. (worse, it's a very weird VLIW) At its most primitive its merely sizing the internal ringbuffer by the rate.... numbufs = configured_line_rate_per_sec/possible_interrupts_sec; buffer = malloc(numbufs*2048); // padding needed that's it. Tracking bytes on the internal ringbuffer instead of just packets is vastly better but slightly more code than I care to write in an email, and managing high and low watermarks a snap once you do that. (BQL is a bit more complicated than what is needed in firmware firmware because it sits in the middle of things, but it's only 50 lines of code: https://lwn.net/Articles/454390/ and it was the recognition that the dynamic range of "packet" limits was far worse than "byte" limits that drove it's innovation. Particularly in the TSO age (64-64k "superpackets") Instead, in every current dsl or wifi chip there's always a fixed allocation for onboard buffering designed to overbuffer at the highest rate supported by the hardware at the smallest packet size. Alternatively... With valid statistics coming off the chip (and driver), it's possible to throttle overbuffered firmware, but BOY, is that hard. On the wifi front, we finally finished AQL "airtime queue limits" last month (it has been shipping commercially for several years out of tree. The difference was 500+ms of onboard buffering reduced to 10ms (at this tested rate, 2+ seconds at lower rates), no loss in throughput. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14OIuQEHOUiIoNrVnKprj6rBYFNZ0Coif I just wish I could find whatever dude, now living under a bridge somewhere, that wrote the dsl drivers for everything, and buy him a beer. A 6pack later, dsl'd be fixed, at least. >> I have wasted more time trying to come up with shapers that defeat the >> buffering in cable/dsl/wifi etc - rather than stuff that runs at line >> rate, merely because I couldn't find anyone at any company that could >> patch out the buffer allocation scheme for something sane. > > Well, took a long time for folks to understand how to even do ingres > shaping and why you need it. Not sure that many products already > do it well. > > Lots of stupid/complex remote BRAS shaping though. Policing, also. >> The only sane dsl driver in the world was custom written by free.fr, and >> they won't let it go. DSLAMs, fuggetabout it. > > Well, the thought it to be critical to their business differentiation, > hard to blame them for not publishing it. Free has been very free about "what to do", just not about their code. They have also tried, and failed, to get source licenses to their fiber ONT, dslams, etc and other overbuffered gear and are deeply unhappy about that. One reason why fiber "feels" so much better than other systems is that those devices have reasonably small buffers. Sonic fiber's network has about 60ms worth of buffering at 100mbit. Improvements on this we have made *can* be felt by users - not having to ride the sawtooth http://www.taht.net/~d/sonic_106_cake_vs_default.png is *nice* but compared to the outrages on other edge technologies... plain ole fifo'd fiber is enough better. Google fiber's "shaped" 5mbit service had 400+ms of FIFO buffering because, well, see further above.... >> In order to finally finish the bufferbloat work - and get rid of most of >> the need for expensive cpu shapers in favor of adaquate backpression - >> We only need two algorithms in play - less than 1k lines of code - >> to solve the bufferbloat problem thoroughly - and the simplest, and the >> only one needed near the hardware - is the bql algorithm, invented in >> 2012, and universal across linux based ethernet devices today. > > I thought PIE was fairly decent too, but of course i was surrounded by > that team back in the days it was done, so i do not have no good > overview of alternatives. I think pie is decent also! Despite my fondness for fq_codel (which does win the internets) the relative simplicity of pie made it more suitable for a direct hardware implementation in switches and hardware routers. DOCSIS 3.1 got pie in the uplink direction, and it helps (compared to 250+ms of default buffering, getting 16ms is almost magical). Please note we're talking about two things - I am ranting first about overbuffered unfixable binary blob firmware, embedded in systems that are otherwise mostly done in software. Once you have got those blobs to "1 interrupt's worth of buffering", you can do much fancier things like bql and pie/fq_codel/complicated classification on top with even the cheapest cpus available today. Everything below 1Gbit is fixable if we could kill those blobs. > Ultimately i think the best solution will > likely be a combination of per-hop AQM and end-to-end mechanisms, and > so far i have seen proposal mostly to focus ononly one of these two > control points. I think highly of the BBR + fq_codel inbound shaping configuration. BBRv1 had a few misfeatures that fq_codel works beautifly around. (there may be a paper on this soon) I am sadly certain at this point that inbound shaping by edge devices is going to remain a necessity, but I keep hoping some "headend" maker will get the memo. These folk are doing a nice job with an inline transparent bridge. https://www.preseem.com/ I figure we'll see more of that. >> and in the firmware... all you need is one interrupt's worth of buffering. > > If you have an algorithm only necessary because you assume to have > a limited timer resolution timer reaction entity ("interrup level"), then > i am a bit worried about the long-term necessity of it. ? We need firmware on dsl/wifi/fiber/etc running on a (usually pretty weak) separate cpu because a central cpu cannot respond to interrupts fast enough, so it's a realtime requirement that I don't see going away. A modern 802.11ac chip has over 400 dsps running at nsec resolution on it, also. But offloaded firmware doesn't need to do more work than the central cpu can handle per interrupt it can take. Perhaps this could be an internet maxim said another way by someone else? "offloading too much work to a weaker cpu elsewhere is a lose, the overhead of interfacing with it is rapidly outstripped over time by progress in the main cpu" (hey! this is now an internet history question! :) Mainframes, for example DO and did have a lot of co-processors (how many ms of work did they typically offload?, but so far as I know, most early ethernet cards had very little onboard for cpu - they basically had a lot of expensive rf logic and a few filters, but that was it. Yes? Did sun's 10Mbit ethernet have anything other than that? The fuzzball?) > >> > I believe the problem you seem to be referring to is more fundamental >> > for router/switch forwarding plane (research). Whereas WiFi chips >> > really are AFAIK mostly general purpose CPU/DSP based, the hardware >> > of switches / routers often has a much more convoluted model (e.g.: multi-stage). >> >> dsl/cell/wifi are all binary blobs, almost universally. the only >> exception in the wifi world is the much heralded and aging ath9k chip. > > Yes, and regulation to make it harder to violate regional frequency > requirements does not help innovation. fought that with vint and a few hundred other folk. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html in filing with the fcc: http://www.taht.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practices.pdf kind of won, kind of lost. If we hadn't "won" we'd have not been able to finish the fq_codel research on wifi at all, and wouldn't have got to the 10s of millions on commercial shipments several years later. The bufferbloat project would have died, instead of limping along as it does today. but we lost in not managing to open up the sources more fully on wifi... or in making clear our mechanisms for updates were better than locking things down.... for here, for iot, etc. In retrospect I wish we'd fought harder then to open up the wifi firmware; it was my first, and I'd hoped, my last, political battle. Fighting that fight cost me my job. I kind of despaired after that. There's a fight ongoing in the eu over "the radio directive". I keep hoping the various arguments we made during the fcc fight will win this time. If not there, then maybe brexit? I think the fight with huawei over "security" and trustable code is deeply ironic - at one point they offered to make their sources available - only to have folk in the us (that want to keep their lagging efforts proprietary) A good way to restore trust in every stack is to open up the code as far down as it can go. This, certainly, is one of the things driving the risc-v effort. > >> Most of the designs on these technologies are very insecure and have >> full access to shared memory. >> >> I agree that building switches is harder. Only netfpga has made the >> tiniest amount of progress there. > > And feasibility in FPGA is not even a good proof for an > algorithm/approach to be feasible or ideal for custom asics because they > are sufficiently different from each othrer. Or so i was told by HW engineers. I agree. Fulcrum (long since absorbed by intel) did amazing things with async logic that have not been duplicated since that FPGAS cannot do. I'm pretty sure async logic is at the core(s) of most AI chips. There's just no way anything can run as cool as these do without it... ... but nobody talks about it. >> > Abstractions like P4 try to hide so much of those HW programming models >> > that several researchers i talked to have a very tainted opinion about what >> > router/switch forwarding hardware could do, and that of course influences also >> > how research and the industry at large seems to perceive what better >> > protocol functions would be feasible to support in next-generation >> > high end router/switches. >> >> Merely trying to get an invsqrt (needed for codel) into P4 has been a >> failure. P4 is mind-bendingly different and crude compared to the >> APIs on smarter enthernet cards... and > > Well, i never meant to imply that P4 would be useful as it stands today > for the core of any quos mechanisms. Indeed i think it is not, and > the long-term vision as i think i have heard from Nick is adding a > concept of scheduled processing, and thats very difficult to put into > arbitrary chips. > >> The smarter ethernet card vendors have all been swallowed up of late. >> netronome just essentially went under. mellonox was purchased by >> nvidia. Intel just bought barefoot. There are three switch chips "out >> there", nobody working on gigE and the switches now appearing on >> integrated low end silicon are "copy and paste" affairs. > > My impression was that SmartNICs are having a good business niche > in servers for stack and acceleration, especially for HW adjacent > stacks like RoCE and diagnostic/monitoring/clock-synchronization. yep, that's why they all got bought up. Now innovation will die. > > Then of course it would be up to third-parties to add firmware to > do more than host-stack code on such smart-nics, for forwaders. > Which brings us ack to the issue we discussed. I've lost track. :) It's been just pouring rain all day, and my internet was down... only this backlogged email account works, offline... >> Another thing I have hope for, though (trying to end on a more >> encouraging note) is I really like the work on packet pacing going on, >> where you can offload a packet and a time to send it, to the hw. > > Yes. Well, there are some research papers in the last years pitching > PIFO/PIEO as a good underlying HW abstraction to enable flexible qos > in combination of calculation of rank by e.g: P4 or other programmable > forwarding plane. Off of here: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2019/12/evaluating-bbrv2-on-the-dropbox-edge-network/#disqus_thread Is linked van's mind bending AFAP talk > > Cheers > Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 16:12:30 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 01:12:30 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> <522C6B33-FCE7-42B7-A1BC-AD523AF3C43F@eggert.org> <366d2d77-2f24-a6de-4392-0ef65fabba43@gmail.com> <20191218195049.GB55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20191219001230.GE55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:03:42PM -0500, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Yes, I think people (especially those fussing about the pending PIR sale) > do often forget that IETF and IRTF stuff, and RFCs, are freely available > only because ISOC found a money tree. The same now applies to this list. > > Yeah, as much as i enjoy the conversation, it does not really help me > finding a solution of how to get hosting for an internet-future mailing > list. But it was a great way to prove the point of derailing discussions > on mailing lists. Thanks, Brian ;-)) > > Pretty sure that ISOC (+ money tree) would be willing if approached. If > not, I know that I could set one up on the NY Chapter's server, which I > admin. Thanks, Joly, Whom should i contact ? Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 16:11:35 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 01:11:35 +0100 Subject: [ih] firmware for innovation (was: Re: internet-future mailing list ?) In-Reply-To: <87o8w52xfc.fsf@taht.net> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> <20191218200316.GC55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87o8w52xfc.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <20191219001135.GD55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:25:43PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: > > Hmm. Not sure if its really infeasible to get access to and modify > > WiFi firmware. I think to remember at least to have been toold that > > If you know anyone.... Alas, only hearsay. And if youu go in to the smallest vendor of such chip as a startup pitching them how they could double their chip sales through alternative firmware in a non-wifi radio market, thats a whole different ballpark then coming in as a researcher. > > wrote modified or their own firmware for better / non-wifi radio > > solution. But of course i don't know what the licensing conditions > > where for the API to the chip itself. > > I have been trying for 8 years to acquire source licenses for firmware > for dsl and wifi chips, with no success. I intend to try a lot harder > in the coming year, persuing multiple companies, and perhaps, even legal > measures and the FCC. The first generation ax chips and drivers are > awful - and 5G, worse. Have lost track of DSL chips. In the past they where awfully feature constrained, so no good way to make them do better buffering. > I have wasted more time trying to come up with shapers that defeat the > buffering in cable/dsl/wifi etc - rather than stuff that runs at line > rate, merely because I couldn't find anyone at any company that could > patch out the buffer allocation scheme for something sane. Well, took a long time for folks to understand how to even do ingres shaping and why you need it. Not sure that many products already do it well. Lots of stupid/complex remote BRAS shaping though. > The only sane dsl driver in the world was custom written by free.fr, and > they won't let it go. DSLAMs, fuggetabout it. Well, the thought it to be critical to their business differentiation, hard to blame them for not publishing it. > In order to finally finish the bufferbloat work - and get rid of most of > the need for expensive cpu shapers in favor of adaquate backpression - > We only need two algorithms in play - less than 1k lines of code - > to solve the bufferbloat problem thoroughly - and the simplest, and the > only one needed near the hardware - is the bql algorithm, invented in > 2012, and universal across linux based ethernet devices today. I thought PIE was fairly decent too, but of course i was surrounded by that team back in the days it was done, so i do not have no good overview of alternatives. Ultimately i think the best solution will likely be a combination of per-hop AQM and end-to-end mechanisms, and so far i have seen proposal mostly to focus ononly one of these two control points. > and in the firmware... all you need is one interrupt's worth of buffering. If you have an algorithm only necessary because you assume to have a limited timer resolution timer reaction entity ("interrup level"), then i am a bit worried about the long-term necessity of it. > > I believe the problem you seem to be referring to is more fundamental > > for router/switch forwarding plane (research). Whereas WiFi chips > > really are AFAIK mostly general purpose CPU/DSP based, the hardware > > of switches / routers often has a much more convoluted model (e.g.: multi-stage). > > dsl/cell/wifi are all binary blobs, almost universally. the only > exception in the wifi world is the much heralded and aging ath9k chip. Yes, and regulation to make it harder to violate regional frequency requirements does not help innovation. > Most of the designs on these technologies are very insecure and have > full access to shared memory. > > I agree that building switches is harder. Only netfpga has made the > tiniest amount of progress there. And feasibility in FPGA is not even a good proof for an algorithm/approach to be feasible or ideal for custom asics because they are sufficiently different from each othrer. Or so i was told by HW engineers. > > Abstractions like P4 try to hide so much of those HW programming models > > that several researchers i talked to have a very tainted opinion about what > > router/switch forwarding hardware could do, and that of course influences also > > how research and the industry at large seems to perceive what better > > protocol functions would be feasible to support in next-generation > > high end router/switches. > > Merely trying to get an invsqrt (needed for codel) into P4 has been a > failure. P4 is mind-bendingly different and crude compared to the > APIs on smarter enthernet cards... and Well, i never meant to imply that P4 would be useful as it stands today for the core of any quos mechanisms. Indeed i think it is not, and the long-term vision as i think i have heard from Nick is adding a concept of scheduled processing, and thats very difficult to put into arbitrary chips. > The smarter ethernet card vendors have all been swallowed up of late. > netronome just essentially went under. mellonox was purchased by > nvidia. Intel just bought barefoot. There are three switch chips "out > there", nobody working on gigE and the switches now appearing on > integrated low end silicon are "copy and paste" affairs. My impression was that SmartNICs are having a good business niche in servers for stack and acceleration, especially for HW adjacent stacks like RoCE and diagnostic/monitoring/clock-synchronization. Then of course it would be up to third-parties to add firmware to do more than host-stack code on such smart-nics, for forwaders. Which brings us ack to the issue we discussed. > Another thing I have hope for, though (trying to end on a more > encouraging note) is I really like the work on packet pacing going on, > where you can offload a packet and a time to send it, to the hw. Yes. Well, there are some research papers in the last years pitching PIFO/PIEO as a good underlying HW abstraction to enable flexible qos in combination of calculation of rank by e.g: P4 or other programmable forwarding plane. Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 12:25:43 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:25:43 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191218200316.GC55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> (Toerless Eckert's message of "Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:03:16 +0100") References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> <20191218200316.GC55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <87o8w52xfc.fsf@taht.net> Toerless Eckert writes: G> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:35:13AM -0800, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: >> Pretty good rant on a recent MIT paper from dave reed: >> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2019-December/009453.html >> >> but it's really not MIT's fault. They are locked out at the most basic >> level - be it firmware or gates - from participating in what otherwise >> could be an exciting next phase in wireless development. >> >> About the only bright spot I see at the moment in terms of hardware, is >> the burgeoning risc-v stuff. > > Hmm. Not sure if its really infeasible to get access to and modify > WiFi firmware. I think to remember at least to have been toold that If you know anyone.... > various startups are re-using larger bendors "WiFi" chipsets and > wrote modified or their own firmware for better / non-wifi radio > solution. But of course i don't know what the licensing conditions > where for the API to the chip itself. I have been trying for 8 years to acquire source licenses for firmware for dsl and wifi chips, with no success. I intend to try a lot harder in the coming year, persuing multiple companies, and perhaps, even legal measures and the FCC. The first generation ax chips and drivers are awful - and 5G, worse. I have wasted more time trying to come up with shapers that defeat the buffering in cable/dsl/wifi etc - rather than stuff that runs at line rate, merely because I couldn't find anyone at any company that could patch out the buffer allocation scheme for something sane. The only sane dsl driver in the world was custom written by free.fr, and they won't let it go. DSLAMs, fuggetabout it. In order to finally finish the bufferbloat work - and get rid of most of the need for expensive cpu shapers in favor of adaquate backpression - We only need two algorithms in play - less than 1k lines of code - to solve the bufferbloat problem thoroughly - and the simplest, and the only one needed near the hardware - is the bql algorithm, invented in 2012, and universal across linux based ethernet devices today. and in the firmware... all you need is one interrupt's worth of buffering. > > I believe the problem you seem to be referring to is more fundamental > for router/switch forwarding plane (research). Whereas WiFi chips > really are AFAIK mostly general purpose CPU/DSP based, the hardware > of switches / routers often has a much more convoluted model (e.g.: multi-stage). dsl/cell/wifi are all binary blobs, almost universally. the only exception in the wifi world is the much heralded and aging ath9k chip. Most of the designs on these technologies are very insecure and have full access to shared memory. I agree that building switches is harder. Only netfpga has made the tiniest amount of progress there. > Abstractions like P4 try to hide so much of those HW programming models > that several researchers i talked to have a very tainted opinion about what > router/switch forwarding hardware could do, and that of course influences also > how research and the industry at large seems to perceive what better > protocol functions would be feasible to support in next-generation > high end router/switches. Merely trying to get an invsqrt (needed for codel) into P4 has been a failure. P4 is mind-bendingly different and crude compared to the APIs on smarter enthernet cards... and The smarter ethernet card vendors have all been swallowed up of late. netronome just essentially went under. mellonox was purchased by nvidia. Intel just bought barefoot. There are three switch chips "out there", nobody working on gigE and the switches now appearing on integrated low end silicon are "copy and paste" affairs. Another thing I have hope for, though (trying to end on a more encouraging note) is I really like the work on packet pacing going on, where you can offload a packet and a time to send it, to the hw. > > Cheers > Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 12:10:26 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Levine via Internet-history) Date: 18 Dec 2019 15:10:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191218195049.GB55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20191218201027.3D160117D51E@ary.qy> In article <20191218195049.GB55430 at faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> you write: >Yeah, as much as i enjoy the conversation, it does not really help me >finding a solution of how to get hosting for an internet-future mailing >list. If you want a mailing list, I can host a mailing list. I host dozens of others. R's, John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 12:03:42 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:03:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191218195049.GB55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> <522C6B33-FCE7-42B7-A1BC-AD523AF3C43F@eggert.org> <366d2d77-2f24-a6de-4392-0ef65fabba43@gmail.com> <20191218195049.GB55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: > Yes, I think people (especially those fussing about the pending PIR sale) do often forget that IETF and IRTF stuff, and RFCs, are freely available only because ISOC found a money tree. The same now applies to this list. Yeah, as much as i enjoy the conversation, it does not really help me finding a solution of how to get hosting for an internet-future mailing list. But it was a great way to prove the point of derailing discussions on mailing lists. Thanks, Brian ;-)) Pretty sure that ISOC (+ money tree) would be willing if approached. If not, I know that I could set one up on the NY Chapter's server, which I admin. joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 12:03:16 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:03:16 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <20191218200316.GC55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:35:13AM -0800, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > Pretty good rant on a recent MIT paper from dave reed: > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2019-December/009453.html > > but it's really not MIT's fault. They are locked out at the most basic > level - be it firmware or gates - from participating in what otherwise > could be an exciting next phase in wireless development. > > About the only bright spot I see at the moment in terms of hardware, is > the burgeoning risc-v stuff. Hmm. Not sure if its really infeasible to get access to and modify WiFi firmware. I think to remember at least to have been toold that various startups are re-using larger bendors "WiFi" chipsets and wrote modified or their own firmware for better / non-wifi radio solution. But of course i don't know what the licensing conditions where for the API to the chip itself. I believe the problem you seem to be referring to is more fundamental for router/switch forwarding plane (research). Whereas WiFi chips really are AFAIK mostly general purpose CPU/DSP based, the hardware of switches / routers often has a much more convoluted model (e.g.: multi-stage). Abstractions like P4 try to hide so much of those HW programming models that several researchers i talked to have a very tainted opinion about what router/switch forwarding hardware could do, and that of course influences also how research and the industry at large seems to perceive what better protocol functions would be feasible to support in next-generation high end router/switches. Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 11:50:49 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 20:50:49 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <366d2d77-2f24-a6de-4392-0ef65fabba43@gmail.com> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> <522C6B33-FCE7-42B7-A1BC-AD523AF3C43F@eggert.org> <366d2d77-2f24-a6de-4392-0ef65fabba43@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20191218195049.GB55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:31:01AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > You can access *all* papers published at SIGCOMM-sponsored events openly; you need to access them from the "program" page of the event in question. > > Hmm. I found the slides from SIGCOMM 2019 quite easily, but not the papers. What's the link to the Trotsky paper, for example? (I got my copy by a rather indirect route.) It's also annoyingly hard to find CCR papers in general. You can always ask the authors directly via email. Hopefully you did not use Sci Hub or other illegal methods. One way to improve the legal options for access to scientific research could be to mandate a published pricing option by which the author(s) (organization) could pay a lump sum upfront to make the conference organization publish the papers with free access. As a stand in for the access via pay wall. That way at least one could start comparing what different organizations think they need in revenue for each published paper and have them think more about becoming leaner (well, SIGCOM is not the best example for that of course). After all, there are other publishing organizations with exactly that model, and they widely vary in price. > > (That limitation is super-annoying, I agree. It's an ongoing debate in the community whether we should go full open access, but we'd need to offset the loss of SIG income from the digital library in some way.) > > Yes, I think people (especially those fussing about the pending PIR sale) do often forget that IETF and IRTF stuff, and RFCs, are freely available only because ISOC found a money tree. The same now applies to this list. Yeah, as much as i enjoy the conversation, it does not really help me finding a solution of how to get hosting for an internet-future mailing list. But it was a great way to prove the point of derailing discussions on mailing lists. Thanks, Brian ;-)) Cheers Toerless > Brian > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 11:35:13 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:35:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> (John Gilmore via Internet-history's message of "Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:31:33 -0800") References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <874kxx4eby.fsf@taht.net> John Gilmore via Internet-history writes: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Isn't this a large part of what SIGCOMM does for a living? >> https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342075 for example. Sigcomm is too full of angels on a pin think. > > If an internet-futures discussion fell behind a paywall, would anyone notice? > > From my point of view, ACM and all its SIGs have rendered themselves > irrelevant by refusing to allow ordinary public online access. Fully Well, in the past two years, nearly all the major papers have also paywalled themselves also. Reading news.google.com is like the national enquirer these days, only worse, because you get a teaser for something you might be interested in, and then hit yet another site that wants a credit card and your identity for your eyeballs. Commercials interrupt everything. Sites - even with adblockers - are unbearably slow. Google no longer indexes most mailing lists. google would be a heck of a lot more useful if it still did, or somehow, gmane returned. Everything seems like a press release.... I really miss netnews. I worry that disquis is buring useful material. I think we are at the end of the internet's golden era. We will look back on bittorrent fondly as the last time the users cared enough to participate in preserving historical material. Only wikipedia remains somewhat interesting to me. > half the reason the Internet protocols caught on was because anyone and > everyone was encouraged to download them, read them, share them, and > understand them. If it wasn't for sci-hub, I'd have given up on network research long ago. And even then, the quality is pitiful. Once mighty MIT is reduced to phoning it in - unable to get a source license to any wireless technology... Pretty good rant on a recent MIT paper from dave reed: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2019-December/009453.html but it's really not MIT's fault. They are locked out at the most basic level - be it firmware or gates - from participating in what otherwise could be an exciting next phase in wireless development. About the only bright spot I see at the moment in terms of hardware, is the burgeoning risc-v stuff. > > John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 11:31:01 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:31:01 +1300 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <522C6B33-FCE7-42B7-A1BC-AD523AF3C43F@eggert.org> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> <522C6B33-FCE7-42B7-A1BC-AD523AF3C43F@eggert.org> Message-ID: <366d2d77-2f24-a6de-4392-0ef65fabba43@gmail.com> On 18-Dec-19 23:10, Lars Eggert wrote: > On 2019-12-18, at 4:20, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> A very large number of people have ACM access, and there >> is most often a "preprint" version of most SIGCOMM papers available. >> So although I agree with your comment in general, I'm not sure it >> applies to SIGCOMM. > > You can access *all* papers published at SIGCOMM-sponsored events openly; you need to access them from the "program" page of the event in question. Hmm. I found the slides from SIGCOMM 2019 quite easily, but not the papers. What's the link to the Trotsky paper, for example? (I got my copy by a rather indirect route.) It's also annoyingly hard to find CCR papers in general. > (That limitation is super-annoying, I agree. It's an ongoing debate in the community whether we should go full open access, but we'd need to offset the loss of SIG income from the digital library in some way.) Yes, I think people (especially those fussing about the pending PIR sale) do often forget that IETF and IRTF stuff, and RFCs, are freely available only because ISOC found a money tree. The same now applies to this list. Brian -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 11:22:18 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:22:18 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: (Karl Auerbach via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:15:24 -0800") References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <878sn94exh.fsf@taht.net> Karl Auerbach via Internet-history writes: > It can be kinda fun to try to look into the crystal ball. > > One thought that struck me a few years back was a recognition that > "The Internet" (with or without capitalization) is rather like the > elephant in the fable about the blind men: it is perceived as many > different things. Ironically enough morton satirized that poem here: https://gettys.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant/ It was six men of Interstan, To learning much inclined, Who sought to fix the Internet, (With market share in mind), That evil of congestion, Might soon be left behind. ... > For those of us here "The Internet" may be conceived as a system that > carries IP packets from hither to yon where that hither and yon are > identified by globally unique IP addresses. And communicate via email. Email is seriously dying. If we want to have a serious discussion of the internet future with those creating it, we need to move to whatsapp... and us old farts need to reach out to them, not them to us. In terms of my mailing list subscriptions, I doubt I've had more than 3 new users a year since 2014. > Others may view the net as the world wide web. > > I would suggest that if we asked younger users and engineers that we > would get a rather different answer: that to them the net is composed > of interworking applications like Instagram or Twitter or TikTok. > > From that application-centric point of view things like "end to end > principle" become merely a disposable detail of inner plumbing.? Does > it really matter to Twitter users whether the underlying machinery is > elegant and free of media transitions and proxies? And platforms, not protocols, rule the day. Until the economy collapses again, and all the money losing companies on which this new era is dependent on either get bought or collapse. Take cloudflare, as one example... > And from another perspective I've seeing a lot of movement, often done > under the banner of "optimization", back towards circuit switching > notions - or rather, hybrids in which packet routing is ever more > forcefully constrained into fixed paths (especially for data flows for > conversational audio or interactive video that have severe latency and > jitter constraints.) I am increasingly fond of circuit switching. The switched telephony network was so much better than what we have today - a call across town was like whispering into your lovers ear. Then we accepted first, a 10ms, then a 20ms compromise in voip, and, if you measure a typical cell phone call, it's in the 100s of ms... and ghu help us all in the case of a major earthquake, war, or tsunami. I think a lot of reason for worldwide rage and frustration is how badly our voice communications infrastructure currently functions. > > And might one consider the 5G movement (even without millimeter wave > technology) as a new ISO/OSI (but better designed to co-exist with > existing IPv4/6 infrastructures.) I would like to consider the open source folk, also, as a movement, one that has lost much steam in recent years to make effective change. > > A few years back I wrote up one view of where the net could be going.? > It was somewhat pessimistic.? However the intervening years have not > adduced much evidence to the > contrary. https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/ > > One of the more interesting aspects of my own delving into Internet > history has been that there were many roads not taken. Some of those > roads could be re-explored.? (My own favorite candidate for that would > be to revisit what the ISO/OSI people did so badly that few > comprehended its value: a persistent session layer above transport.? > Had we had that we would not have had to explore inelegant things like > mobile IP or HTTP/S cookies.) I keep pounding away at eliminating buffering. Lately - even though fq_codel is a billion+ strong - I despair - the tsvwg is inudated with folk trying to ressurrect old ideas like ecn and paid prioritization, ISPs and wifi and 5g still have seconds of excessive buffering, and despite solving that problem with inbound shaping and/or clever code... well, for example, I just bought a new ubnt mesh ac AP. The linux kernel version is 7 years old. Sometimes it feels like progress at the low level has halted in favor of pretty guis and falsified benchmarks. > > ??? --karl-- > > On 12/16/19 10:40 AM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: >> I was wondering why there is no "internet-future" discussion list >> here on elists.isoc.org given how there is an "internet-history" mailing list. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Dec 18 02:10:59 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Lars Eggert via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:10:59 +0200 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <522C6B33-FCE7-42B7-A1BC-AD523AF3C43F@eggert.org> On 2019-12-18, at 4:20, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > A very large number of people have ACM access, and there > is most often a "preprint" version of most SIGCOMM papers available. > So although I agree with your comment in general, I'm not sure it > applies to SIGCOMM. You can access *all* papers published at SIGCOMM-sponsored events openly; you need to access them from the "program" page of the event in question. (That limitation is super-annoying, I agree. It's an ongoing debate in the community whether we should go full open access, but we'd need to offset the loss of SIG income from the digital library in some way.) Lars -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 17 23:45:45 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:45:45 -1000 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: vis-a-vis* If an internet-futures discussion fell behind a paywall, would anyone notice?* a summary NO as hackers, high school dropouts and other assorted unaffiliated educational establishment randoms (and the unaffiliated non-elite/ordinary public) don't belong to such things. it needs to be free, open and an easy peasy click for immediate intellectual curiosity gratification... and Most Certainly this is even more true for The Nascent Budding Youngin's in developing countries (e.g. africa). geoff On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:00 PM John Gilmore via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Isn't this a large part of what SIGCOMM does for a living? > > https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342075 for example. > > If an internet-futures discussion fell behind a paywall, would anyone > notice? > > From my point of view, ACM and all its SIGs have rendered themselves > irrelevant by refusing to allow ordinary public online access. Fully > half the reason the Internet protocols caught on was because anyone and > everyone was encouraged to download them, read them, share them, and > understand them. > > John > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 17 18:20:52 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:20:52 +1300 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <02114a86-f7f8-65ea-eebc-62e7d87c6eb1@gmail.com> On 18-Dec-19 14:31, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Isn't this a large part of what SIGCOMM does for a living? >> https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342075 for example. > > If an internet-futures discussion fell behind a paywall, would anyone notice? I'd say probably they would, in this case, unlike a fully commercial paywall. A very large number of people have ACM access, and there is most often a "preprint" version of most SIGCOMM papers available. So although I agree with your comment in general, I'm not sure it applies to SIGCOMM. Brian >>From my point of view, ACM and all its SIGs have rendered themselves > irrelevant by refusing to allow ordinary public online access. Fully > half the reason the Internet protocols caught on was because anyone and > everyone was encouraged to download them, read them, share them, and > understand them. > > John > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 17 17:31:33 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Gilmore via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:31:33 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <9429.1576632693@hop.toad.com> Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Isn't this a large part of what SIGCOMM does for a living? > https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342075 for example. If an internet-futures discussion fell behind a paywall, would anyone notice? >From my point of view, ACM and all its SIGs have rendered themselves irrelevant by refusing to allow ordinary public online access. Fully half the reason the Internet protocols caught on was because anyone and everyone was encouraged to download them, read them, share them, and understand them. John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 17 13:41:23 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joe Touch via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:41:23 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: On 2019-12-17 12:47, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > Isn't this a large part of what SIGCOMM does for a living? > > https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342075 for example. > > Regards > Brian Hmmm. Talking at length about what they *think* should be done? Yes. (track record of actual impact - except within their own echo chamber - is low, though) FWIW, I hosted a Sigcomm email list that was intended for such discussions which died out long ago. Same problem. Joe -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 17 12:47:55 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:47:55 +1300 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: Isn't this a large part of what SIGCOMM does for a living? https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342075 for example. Regards Brian On 18-Dec-19 08:13, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Scott, > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 08:40:09PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote: >> I think it depends on the scope of "Internet futures". Do you want >> something without discipline, free-ranging, wild speculation? > > No, of course not. I would like this to be a starting point for birds of > a feather interested in actually contributing to the long-term evolution > if the Internet. I don't think it could or should ultimately host the > detailled work on any topic, because obviously there are too many > sub-topics. But as a "get organized", "dispatch" find collaborators > forum it could IMHO be extremely helpfull. > >> Do you want a group in the IRTF? > > In talking with the current IRTF chair, it seemed to me that he would > not even allow to scope work in the same way as i have seen (and > contributed to) successful IRTF work that started IETF work. So i feel > under current leadership, IRTF work can only cope with a limited subset > of the problem. FOr example, what i would consider architectural > design seems to be outside scope of both IRTF RG and IETF WG. > >> Is it about engineering, policy, appearance to users ... > > I would of course like to get into the interesting research, > architecture and standardization work needed to be done to enable a > successful future Internet, but this always needs to be justified > from predicting/observing trends and future user and operator > experiences. I am always frustrated by research that does not even > try to imagine where/who needs it or whether it could be realized > technically or operated and monetized. > >> ? If there's some discipline then it could work as a mailing list, > > Of course. That why i mentioned the dispatch. As soon as a the larger > mailing list sees a particular thread of discussion to be alble to > move out into a better venue, that should happen. > >> otherwise IMHO it would be a waste of time. On the other hand, a >> free-ranging discussion could be fun and enlightening if it were a biweekly >> one-hour live videochat among anyone who wanted to show up (with time and >> day varying to suit participants around the world). > > I don't think these two are exclusive to each other. I like the idea of > a chat as well. I've kinda outgrown video, but i could try an avatar. > > https://dilbert.com/strip/1994-06-07 > > Cheers > Toerless > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 17 11:13:03 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 20:13:03 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20191217191303.GK55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Scott, On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 08:40:09PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote: > I think it depends on the scope of "Internet futures". Do you want > something without discipline, free-ranging, wild speculation? No, of course not. I would like this to be a starting point for birds of a feather interested in actually contributing to the long-term evolution if the Internet. I don't think it could or should ultimately host the detailled work on any topic, because obviously there are too many sub-topics. But as a "get organized", "dispatch" find collaborators forum it could IMHO be extremely helpfull. > Do you want a group in the IRTF? In talking with the current IRTF chair, it seemed to me that he would not even allow to scope work in the same way as i have seen (and contributed to) successful IRTF work that started IETF work. So i feel under current leadership, IRTF work can only cope with a limited subset of the problem. FOr example, what i would consider architectural design seems to be outside scope of both IRTF RG and IETF WG. > Is it about engineering, policy, appearance to users ... I would of course like to get into the interesting research, architecture and standardization work needed to be done to enable a successful future Internet, but this always needs to be justified from predicting/observing trends and future user and operator experiences. I am always frustrated by research that does not even try to imagine where/who needs it or whether it could be realized technically or operated and monetized. > ? If there's some discipline then it could work as a mailing list, Of course. That why i mentioned the dispatch. As soon as a the larger mailing list sees a particular thread of discussion to be alble to move out into a better venue, that should happen. > otherwise IMHO it would be a waste of time. On the other hand, a > free-ranging discussion could be fun and enlightening if it were a biweekly > one-hour live videochat among anyone who wanted to show up (with time and > day varying to suit participants around the world). I don't think these two are exclusive to each other. I like the idea of a chat as well. I've kinda outgrown video, but i could try an avatar. https://dilbert.com/strip/1994-06-07 Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 19:01:21 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:01:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > > On the other hand, a > free-ranging discussion could be fun and enlightening if it were a biweekly > one-hour live videochat among anyone who wanted to show up (with time and > day varying to suit participants around the world). I might be up to arranging that, as long as I could livestream it! joly > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 17:40:09 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Scott Brim via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:40:09 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think it depends on the scope of "Internet futures". Do you want something without discipline, free-ranging, wild speculation? Do you want a group in the IRTF? Is it about engineering, policy, appearance to users ... ? If there's some discipline then it could work as a mailing list, otherwise IMHO it would be a waste of time. On the other hand, a free-ranging discussion could be fun and enlightening if it were a biweekly one-hour live videochat among anyone who wanted to show up (with time and day varying to suit participants around the world). -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 17:08:32 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:08:32 +1300 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <85a3b3c7-9d1e-1edc-9cec-e3900841309a@gmail.com> On 17-Dec-19 10:15, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote: > It can be kinda fun to try to look into the crystal ball. However, it can be humbling to look back at predictions you made in the past. Been there, done that, and been humbled :-(. For example, they thought I was a pessimist when I said that IPv6 deployment would take 15 years. Brian > > One thought that struck me a few years back was a recognition that "The > Internet" (with or without capitalization) is rather like the elephant > in the fable about the blind men: it is perceived as many different things. > > For those of us here "The Internet" may be conceived as a system that > carries IP packets from hither to yon where that hither and yon are > identified by globally unique IP addresses. > > Others may view the net as the world wide web. > > I would suggest that if we asked younger users and engineers that we > would get a rather different answer: that to them the net is composed of > interworking applications like Instagram or Twitter or TikTok. > > From that application-centric point of view things like "end to end > principle" become merely a disposable detail of inner plumbing.? Does it > really matter to Twitter users whether the underlying machinery is > elegant and free of media transitions and proxies? > > And from another perspective I've seeing a lot of movement, often done > under the banner of "optimization", back towards circuit switching > notions - or rather, hybrids in which packet routing is ever more > forcefully constrained into fixed paths (especially for data flows for > conversational audio or interactive video that have severe latency and > jitter constraints.) > > And might one consider the 5G movement (even without millimeter wave > technology) as a new ISO/OSI (but better designed to co-exist with > existing IPv4/6 infrastructures.) > > A few years back I wrote up one view of where the net could be going.? > It was somewhat pessimistic.? However the intervening years have not > adduced much evidence to the contrary. > https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/ > > One of the more interesting aspects of my own delving into Internet > history has been that there were many roads not taken. Some of those > roads could be re-explored.? (My own favorite candidate for that would > be to revisit what the ISO/OSI people did so badly that few comprehended > its value: a persistent session layer above transport.? Had we had that > we would not have had to explore inelegant things like mobile IP or > HTTP/S cookies.) > > ??? --karl-- > > On 12/16/19 10:40 AM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: >> I was wondering why there is no "internet-future" discussion list >> here on elists.isoc.org given how there is an "internet-history" mailing list. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 14:47:52 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:47:52 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191216222648.GI55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20191216222648.GI55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20191216224752.GA62362@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Great insights. Inline. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:15:24PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > It can be kinda fun to try to look into the crystal ball. > > One thought that struck me a few years back was a recognition that "The > Internet" (with or without capitalization) is rather like the elephant in > the fable about the blind men: it is perceived as many different things. You do know it actually is not an elephant, right ? >From a presentation i watched last friday: https://imgur.com/a/mn2tyMx https://imgur.com/a/wKhOaOI > For those of us here "The Internet" may be conceived as a system that > carries IP packets from hither to yon where that hither and yon are > identified by globally unique IP addresses. I think there are a lot who could think beyond that past defined box. [...] > From that application-centric point of view things like "end to end > principle" become merely a disposable detail of inner plumbing.? Does it > really matter to Twitter users whether the underlying machinery is elegant > and free of media transitions and proxies? Just because billions of people drive cars without understnding how they work doesn't mean you do not need people to think about the future of how cars could/should work. Even beyond electric engines. But i get the point that user/application interest would completely outweigh any lower-layer discussions. I would consider any such discussion a success and worst case one might need to carve out more mailing lists to keep specific groups interests focussed. Right now i would not be worried about that. > And from another perspective I've seeing a lot of movement, often done under > the banner of "optimization", back towards circuit switching notions - or > rather, hybrids in which packet routing is ever more forcefully constrained > into fixed paths (especially for data flows for conversational audio or > interactive video that have severe latency and jitter constraints.) Yes. Or from distributed to centralized or at best little decentralized due to hierarchical "SDN" style orchestration. > And might one consider the 5G movement (even without millimeter wave > technology) as a new ISO/OSI (but better designed to co-exist with existing > IPv4/6 infrastructures.) The non-radio side of 5G is just a distributed overlay application. It does today AFAIK not cover the actual management of physical underlay resources. Thats one of the big contention points going for who will design that. The way i see it, 5G/6G underlays that do have good loss/latency/throughput management could easier be built with IEEE technologies than IETF technologies. Unless we would start to think how to move beyond our current understanding of how to build the Internet. > A few years back I wrote up one view of where the net could be going.? It > was somewhat pessimistic.? However the intervening years have not adduced > much evidence to the contrary. > https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/ Yes, very nice overview. I probably agree with a lot ow what you wrote there, but haven't thought hard about all of them. IMHO, the Internet will evolve into Fronthaul connecting devices&users to edge-DC and backhaul interconnecting edge-DC. That evolution takes out most or all problematic transit issues from the frontaul, therefore enabling a lot more interesting network services than just best-effot much more general than those are today. Will it be possible/desirable to build new business around it. Thats the better question. > > One of the more interesting aspects of my own delving into Internet history > has been that there were many roads not taken. Some of those roads could be > re-explored.? (My own favorite candidate for that would be to revisit what > the ISO/OSI people did so badly that few comprehended its value: a > persistent session layer above transport.? Had we had that we would not have > had to explore inelegant things like mobile IP or HTTP/S cookies.) Yes. Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 13:55:43 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:43 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <480038aa6e9e9764cef5bf3aaa808d65@strayalpha.com> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <480038aa6e9e9764cef5bf3aaa808d65@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <20191216215543.GH55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:14:44PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote: > I started the latter many years go at ISI to help support a community > that was somewhat tangential to the end2end-interst list hosted there. > > It took quite a bit if help to get things setup here for that one list. > The end2end-interest list - where future Internet ideas were previously > discussed many different times - was shut down due to many years of > inactivity. Thanks for explaining. > > I would appreciate if there was such a list for interested parties. > > Others can pursue this if desired, but I won't be leading the charge. As > noted, the end2end-interest list died out because of many years of > inactivity. My experience with future Internet discussions is that they > get overrun by 'flavor of the week' ideas that have infected the NSF and > DARPA over the years, motivated more by posturing and (self)promotion > than actual content. Isn't that a problem incurred by the funding model of most research ? Create a silo in which you show something novel, publish, move on. Larger projects funding across multiple organizatoions and years, do improve things, projects that actually build and run experimental networks even more. But those organized networks then typically establish their own communication forums. > > Especially given how i have seen a lot of postings in internet-history > > being also good reminder about yet not/badly-resolved issues. Those > > things will not find the eyes&ears of forward looking internet > > contributors because many seem to thin there is nothing to be learned > > from history and would not track an "internet-history" mailing list. > > Agreed, but how would a new list solve that? (see my observation above; > in some sense, this list exists separate from the other exactly because > of the different motivations you note) Well, AFAIK, having a mailing list isn't that much overhead, so i don't think one needs to overdo expectation management. Not much lost if it doesn't help the conversation. But then again, there are various ways to promote discussion on such a list. YOu want me to outline them ? Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 13:26:00 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Ofer Inbar via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:26:00 -0500 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20191216212600.GM324@mip.aaaaa.org> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:15:24PM -0800, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote: > From that application-centric point of view things like "end to end > principle" become merely a disposable detail of inner plumbing.?? Does it > really matter to Twitter users whether the underlying machinery is > elegant and free of media transitions and proxies? While it's a reasonable point to illustrate what you meant, I don't think that's a productive way to look at it from an engineering point of view. The goal of things like the end to end principle isn't user interface, it's to create an environment conducive to new things happening. It does really matter to twitter users whether twitter ever existed at all, and twitter would not have been created without the existence of the web, so the fact that the early Internet was an environment where something like the web could come from the sidelines and flourish without that being the plan, is significant. Is the Internet of today creating obstacles, or failing to create opportunity, for things none of us have thought of or tried yet, but which may make a huge difference to today's twitter users in the future? Does the end to end principle serve that goal? That's a better way to look at it. -- Cos -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 13:15:24 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Karl Auerbach via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:15:24 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: It can be kinda fun to try to look into the crystal ball. One thought that struck me a few years back was a recognition that "The Internet" (with or without capitalization) is rather like the elephant in the fable about the blind men: it is perceived as many different things. For those of us here "The Internet" may be conceived as a system that carries IP packets from hither to yon where that hither and yon are identified by globally unique IP addresses. Others may view the net as the world wide web. I would suggest that if we asked younger users and engineers that we would get a rather different answer: that to them the net is composed of interworking applications like Instagram or Twitter or TikTok. From that application-centric point of view things like "end to end principle" become merely a disposable detail of inner plumbing.? Does it really matter to Twitter users whether the underlying machinery is elegant and free of media transitions and proxies? And from another perspective I've seeing a lot of movement, often done under the banner of "optimization", back towards circuit switching notions - or rather, hybrids in which packet routing is ever more forcefully constrained into fixed paths (especially for data flows for conversational audio or interactive video that have severe latency and jitter constraints.) And might one consider the 5G movement (even without millimeter wave technology) as a new ISO/OSI (but better designed to co-exist with existing IPv4/6 infrastructures.) A few years back I wrote up one view of where the net could be going.? It was somewhat pessimistic.? However the intervening years have not adduced much evidence to the contrary. https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/ One of the more interesting aspects of my own delving into Internet history has been that there were many roads not taken. Some of those roads could be re-explored.? (My own favorite candidate for that would be to revisit what the ISO/OSI people did so badly that few comprehended its value: a persistent session layer above transport.? Had we had that we would not have had to explore inelegant things like mobile IP or HTTP/S cookies.) ??? --karl-- On 12/16/19 10:40 AM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > I was wondering why there is no "internet-future" discussion list > here on elists.isoc.org given how there is an "internet-history" mailing list. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 12:14:44 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joe Touch via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:14:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? In-Reply-To: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <480038aa6e9e9764cef5bf3aaa808d65@strayalpha.com> Hi, Toerless, On 2019-12-16 10:40, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > I was wondering why there is no "internet-future" discussion list > here on elists.isoc.org given how there is an "internet-history" mailing list. I started the latter many years go at ISI to help support a community that was somewhat tangential to the end2end-interst list hosted there. It took quite a bit if help to get things setup here for that one list. The end2end-interest list - where future Internet ideas were previously discussed many different times - was shut down due to many years of inactivity. > I would appreciate if there was such a list for interested parties. Others can pursue this if desired, but I won't be leading the charge. As noted, the end2end-interest list died out because of many years of inactivity. My experience with future Internet discussions is that they get overrun by 'flavor of the week' ideas that have infected the NSF and DARPA over the years, motivated more by posturing and (self)promotion than actual content. > Especially given how i have seen a lot of postings in internet-history > being also good reminder about yet not/badly-resolved issues. Those > things will not find the eyes&ears of forward looking internet > contributors because many seem to thin there is nothing to be learned > from history and would not track an "internet-history" mailing list. Agreed, but how would a new list solve that? (see my observation above; in some sense, this list exists separate from the other exactly because of the different motivations you note) Joe -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Dec 16 10:40:10 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Toerless Eckert via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:40:10 +0100 Subject: [ih] internet-future mailing list ? Message-ID: <20191216184010.GF55430@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> I was wondering why there is no "internet-future" discussion list here on elists.isoc.org given how there is an "internet-history" mailing list. I would appreciate if there was such a list for interested parties. Especially given how i hae seen a lot of postings in internet-history being also good reminder about yet not/badly-resolved issues. Those things will not find the eyes&ears of forward looking internet contributors because many seem to thin there is nothing to be learned from history and would not track an "internet-history" mailing list. Cheers Toerless -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Tue Dec 10 04:09:13 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Day via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:09:13 -0500 Subject: [ih] Extension Header Insertion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since the first SRH was there to specify the whole path, wouldn?t that imply that the second SRH would be ?adding detail?, i.e. be addresses interleaved with the first SRH? Or is there a requirement that the second one be strictly sequential, i.e. first do the addresses in the first SRH, then do the addresses in the second SRH? John > On Dec 10, 2019, at 06:29, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > >> On 9 Dec 2019, at 03:04, Ron Bonica > wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> This question is posed primarily to the proponents of Extension Header insertion. >> >> Do you think that it is acceptable to insert a second routing header into a packet that already has one, so the resulting packet looks like the following: >> >> IPv6 header >> SRH >> SRH >> Upper-layer header >> >> Would this be common in TI-LFA? >> > > Given that the advantage of SRv6 is always quoted as being that the whole path is available to the receiver for audit purposes, shouldn?t the TI-LFA path be inserted in the existing SRH (if present) so that the packet can be inspected on reception and adherence to policy be verified for the whole path? > > - Stewart > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6 at ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Dec 6 11:52:27 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Barbara Denny via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 19:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Cordial Invitation to 50th year anniversary of ALOHA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1717606723.9922027.1575661947533@mail.yahoo.com> I have J.J.'s permission to forward this email to this mailing list.? Hope some of you will find it of interest. barbara? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves To: J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves Cc: don Nielson Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019, 10:17:11 AM PSTSubject: TIME SENSITIVE: Cordial Invitation to 50th year anniversary of ALOHA Dear SRI and SRI alumni friends, As some of you may know, I am a happy alumnus of the University of Hawaii (UH), and my excuse to have a free vacation for a few years in Honolulu was the ALOHA system. Next year, 2020, it will be 50 years since the publication?of the first paper on ALOHA.Because of that, ?I have organized a symposium?to celebrate 50 years of the ALOHA?system.?The event will be held at the Silicon Valley campus of?UCSC on 24 January 2020. The website for the event is:https://citris.sites.ucsc.edu/alohanet/ As you can read, we are very fortunate to have so many distinguished speakers? in?one day. Please forward this invitation to all SRI colleagues who you think would be interested, and in particular those SRI alumni who were part of the DARPA packet radio program, SURAN, GloMo, and so many?others.? FYI, Don Nielson is giving a summary of SRI's role on packet radio [see program] ?and Jake Feinler is already registered ?to attend?:-)?However, we need many more SRI friends at the event and unfortunately ?I do not have ?contact information for most of them.? IMPORTANT: Registration is free until December 25th!? Let me or Michael Matkin know if you have any questions. I hope to see many SRI and SRI alumni friends at the event! As we say at UH, ?Mahalo and Aloha! JJ-- J.J. Garcia-Luna-AcevesDistinguished Professor of?Computer Science and Engineering? CITRIS Campus Director University of California at Santa CruzSanta Cruz, CA 95064http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~jj/ -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history