[menog] [Paper] New IP

Tue Dec 1 22:27:21 UTC 2020

Hello again,

I am top posting the speak to a few points and leave the full email 
chain at the bottom.

First, thanks for the link to the video and the opportunity to discuss 
it here.  Unfortunately, I don't really have anything positive to say 
about the video.  I normally would have turned it off in the very 
beginning, but since I posted here and you responded, I felt duty-bound 
to watch the whole thing.  So, I will try to keep my comments short as I 
have so many I would lose track... :)

This video actually emphasizes what I said in my earlier email.  Please 
note that upon re-reading my email I see I was confusing about a couple 
things I wrote.  I can attribute this to being passionate about the 
internet and what it has brought to the wider world.  I first got on the 
internet in 1987 (before www existed), have worked on it professionally 
since 1997 and have watched everything happen since then.  It is the 
reason I am passionate, so please don't take what I may say badly.  I 
just want to be able to speak freely to anyone who would like to 
communicate with me.  This, I feel, is the real benefit of the internet.

Notes on the video:

First, she states the DNS is having performance issues.  It is not.  
That is false.

She says the internet is broken and is not up to the task of handling 
the use it is seeing.  This is also false!  The internet has handled 
everything thrown at it just fine and will continue to do so far into 
the future.

Importantly, she says they want to use blockchain to 'provide a highly 
traceable and collaborative tool to allow legitimate users to access 
once they are verified'.  This is why I said it is nothing more than a 
thing to find people that say something the governments don't like and 
repress them. Or even worse. In other words a spy network. It's like "we 
must know how to find you before you can use the internet".  What???

This person has no idea what she's talking about technically.  She 
equates the internet to just being part of China's Belt and Road 
Initiative.  Wow!  Just wow!  I am at a loss for words!

She shows contempt for the IETF and says ITU is the way to go.  This is 
a terrible idea.  The ITU only allows governments (who pay ITU a lot of 
money) to participate. On the other hand *ANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE 
IETF*. Anyone!  You, me, anyone on this list or anywhere in the world. 
It is free and open.  It must drive her (and other government types) 
crazy that one of the IETF's 'founding beliefs' is "We reject kings, 
presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code". 
The IETF is why the internet has grown so well over the decades to be 
the largest communications network the world has ever seen!  The ITU had 
nothing to do with it!

It really seems she is saying thanks for the work IETF, now the 
governments will take over the internet through the ITU.  She even 
implies the current tech community that built (and builds every day) the 
internet doesn't understand what's going on. What???

She states the internet protocols are not up to the task because they 
are lightweight...ummm...that's why it has worked so well. Make them 
heavyweight and the whole thing becomes brittle, which leads to breakage.

ISPs are just 'packet plumbers'.  They should not be placed in a role of 
enforcing what people can or cannot talk about.  It is hard enough just 
to move packets quickly and efficiently so that applications work correctly.

She actually states some countries "didn't get it together in time to 
put up their "great firewall of China" like China did". Additionally, 
she tries to differentiate between the "China internet" and "the 
internet".  There is no "China internet" and "the internet".  There is 
only the internet.  China only allows its citizens access to part of the 
internet using their DPI firewalls to block things the government 
doesn't like. (Absolutely no freedom of speech!)  The internet is the 
range of IP addresses 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 (IPv4) and ::0 - 
ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff (IPv6).  If one uses any of 
those addresses and has access to other public networks (who then have 
access to more networks) they are "on the internet".

The conclusion I draw is they seem to want to overload the DNS with 
things the DNS is not meant to do.  It is not a mechanism to authorize 
folks to have access to the internet via blockchain.

The one thing she got right is it is a very complex issue.  
Unfortunately, this person's ability to grasp those complex issues is 
lacking in the extreme.

Thanks for your time and for reading my email!

scott

On 11/29/20 8:25 PM, Fahd Batayneh wrote:
>
> Scott and All,
>
> The /London Internet Exchange (LINX)/ organized a webinar on the same 
> topic entitled “/New IP, China's project to make new Internet 
> standards: you must ask the right question/”. The presenter is /Emily 
> Taylor/ from OXIL. You can find the YouTube recording here >> 
> https://youtu.be/whPiAFT-zVY.
>
> The webinar looked at aspects like economic motivation, economic 
> benefits… amongst others. The 1 hour video is worth watching.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Fahd
>
> *From: *<menog-bounces at lists.menog.org> on behalf of scott weeks 
> <surfer at mauigateway.com>
> *Date: *Monday, November 30, 2020 at 12:21 AM
> *To: *"menog at lists.menog.org" <menog at lists.menog.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [menog] [Paper] New IP
>
> Top posting as the original is long; it's in full at the bottom.
>
> Some of this makes no sense.  It is a case of asking for everything one
>
> can think of in the hopes of getting what one originally wants. (Erdogan
>
> calls it the "dance of the peacock") That person can then say "I gave
>
> up all these things just to show I am working with everyone in good
>
> faith....all I want is "X"".  In this case "X" is the ability to surveil
>
> everyone at all times.
>
> "/The requirements perceived for these use cases demand bandwidth on the
>
> order of one terabit per second per-flow, sub-millisecond latency, and
>
> zero packet loss."
>
> /How will one have sub-millisecond latency and Tbps bandwidth with zero
>
> packet loss between humans on the moon and earth, for example?  How
>
> about when we get humans to Mars and beyond?  (DTN is how:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dtn/documents__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c75cAtxfWw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dtn/documents__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c75cAtxfWw$> 
> )  That can't happen due to
>
> physics, so it seems they want to build a spy network parallel to 'the
>
> internet'.  Not take over 'the internet'.
>
> "/New IP advances the idea of a strong regulatory binding between an IP
>
> address and a user"
>
> /This, I believe, is what it is all about.  The "X", above.  Being able
>
> to surveil everyone and spy on everything they do.
>
> The ultimate non-starter is this: "/it cannot be compatible with the
>
> existing deployed IPv4- or IPv6-based infrastructure. As such, New IP
>
> would have to be deployed in parallel with the current Internet
>
> infrastructure, interconnecting via gateways."
>
> /
>
> Are they thinking they will build the "New IP Network" and attempt to
>
> force (economic, political, physical or ???) every network in the world
>
> to attach to the "New IP Network"?  That ain't gonna happen without
>
> major force of some sort applied to the world's network owners.  So, at
>
> best they will force a small subset of the world's networks to do that
>
> and those networks will not be able to communicate with the rest of the
>
> world's networks who refuse to connect. Sadly, the users on those
>
> networks would be left in the dust of history.
>
> scott
>
> On 11/29/20 6:23 AM, Fahd Batayneh wrote:
>
>     Friends and Colleagues,
>
>     ICANN’s /Office the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO)/ has published a
>
>     new paper entitled “*New IP*”; which, you can access online here >>
>
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/octo-017-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c75C01GSnA$
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/octo-017-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c75C01GSnA$>
>     .
>
>     /Network 2030 was a focus group (FG) created by the Telecommunication
>
>     Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Study Group 13 “to carry out a broad
>
>     analysis for future networks towards 2030 and beyond. In order to
>
>     formulate a right vision, this FG is expected to identify the gaps
>     and
>
>     challenges based on the latest networking technologies, and derive
>
>     fundamental requirements from novel use cases.” The Network 2030
>     Focus
>
>     Group concluded in July 2020, envisioning a number of futuristic use
>
>     cases, ranging from “holographic communications” to “tactile
>
>     Internet,” “Digital Twins,” and “Industrial IoT.” The requirements
>
>     perceived for these use cases demand bandwidth on the order of one
>
>     terabit per second per-flow, sub-millisecond latency, and zero packet
>
>     loss. These requirements seem unlikely to be ubiquitously realizable
>
>     in the assumed timeframe of ten years from now./
>
>     //
>
>     /New IP is driven by Huawei and its subsidiary, Futurewei. New IP’s
>
>     relationship to Network 2030 is unclear because New IP proponents
>     tend
>
>     to use the two names interchangeably. At best, New IP can be seen
>     as a
>
>     set of desired features to implement the use case described in
>     Network
>
>     2030. However, there are no publicly available, definitive, and
>
>     complete descriptions of what New IP is. As such, it can only be seen
>
>     at best as “work in progress” and cannot be fully analyzed and
>
>     compared to a standard such as the TCP/IP protocol suite. Hints
>     can be
>
>     found in Huawei blogs, a Futurewei Internet Draft submitted to the
>
>     Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), slides from a guest talk
>     at an
>
>     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) conference,
>
>     and in an ITU-T liaison statement to the IETF. At a high level,
>     New IP
>
>     architecture introduces variable length addresses; reintroduces
>
>     circuit-switched-like principles in what is dubbed “better than best
>
>     effort networking”; suggests an approach to enable packets to embed
>
>     contracts to be enforced by intermediary network elements in a way
>
>     that is reminiscent of active networks where packets contain code to
>
>     be executed by routers and switches; and presents the concept of
>
>     “ManyNets” where instead of a single network, the Internet would
>
>     become a patchwork of networks loosely interconnected via gateways.
>
>     New IP advances the idea of a strong regulatory binding between an IP
>
>     address and a user. If deployed, such techniques could make pervasive
>
>     monitoring much easier because it would allow any intermediary
>     element
>
>     (router, switch, and so on) to have full access to exactly which user
>
>     is doing what. Similarly, content providers would have access to the
>
>     identity of every user connecting to them. This could dramatically
>
>     increase the oversight of published content./
>
>     //
>
>     /Although New IP can use a new variable length addressing type, IPv4,
>
>     IPv6, or any combination of the above, it cannot be compatible with
>
>     the existing deployed IPv4- or IPv6-based infrastructure. As such,
>     New
>
>     IP would have to be deployed in parallel with the current Internet
>
>     infrastructure, interconnecting via gateways. Any significant
>
>     deployment would probably face decades-long timelines./
>
>     More papers published by OCTO can be found here >>
>
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/octo-publications-2019-05-24-en__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c742_QRWJw$
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/octo-publications-2019-05-24-en__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c742_QRWJw$>
>     .
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     *Fahd Batayneh*
>
>     ICANN
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Menog mailing list
>
>     Menog at lists.menog.org <mailto:Menog at lists.menog.org>
>
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.menog.org/mailman/listinfo/menog__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c76BE0__PA$
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lists.menog.org/mailman/listinfo/menog__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c76BE0__PA$>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Menog mailing list
>
> Menog at lists.menog.org <mailto:Menog at lists.menog.org>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.menog.org/mailman/listinfo/menog__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c76BE0__PA$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lists.menog.org/mailman/listinfo/menog__;!!PtGJab4!sUX37v9NZ0DMKCqtOq-QrWEzc2VoHrX97twU6jzWw48Yh1z-B-XC0_lgsGyLwaP6c76BE0__PA$> 
>
>