[discuss] The decentralization of IP addresses
willi.uebelherr at riseup.net
Thu Dec 10 12:53:19 UTC 2015
this is the contribution from Jefsey on the Governance list to this
many greetings, willi
At 18:59 29/11/2015, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote:
>Third, challenging the Internet architecture seems to be a red line,
>something that no multistakeholder/status quo champion could ever
>discuss, debate, think of. They should think twice. And not because
>of the ITU, but
>1. because of the US obstructive stance,
>2. and because technology calls for innovation and disruption
Let me be clear about this in order to not create unnecessary confusion
or dispute. The red line is about the Internet medium layer architecture
vs its Catenet basis. This is not a question of technical dogma but
rather of technical focus, options, experience, capacity and
A. I will explain why it is a UNIX/NETIX perspectives opposition
B. I will shortly explain the root of the confusion
C. I will explain the current open trend
D. I will eventually consider Willi's position
A. the UNIX/NETIX opposition
The internet (cf. IEN 48
has architected the Internet project as the ARPANET catenet, along the
Louis Pouzin terminology understood by ARPA as "roughly [meaning] "the
collection of packet networks which are connected together."" Vint
explains that it is not enough for a practical implementation and sets
the objectives and constraints of an ARPANET catenet internetting. He
then documents his own objectives. There are two targets and one key
1. Vint Cerf's first objective (specific to the internet use of the
to permit the internal technology of a [TCP/IP] data network to be
optimized for local operation and to be readily interconnected into an
organized catenet. This means that everyone must use an inter-network
optimized technology. And the IP local addressing scheme must extend to
the global network. This differs from the two other parallel contributions:
1.1. by the ITU: to build a catenet through an external technology
(X.75) optimized to support local technology interconnections, with a
local technology (X.25) optimized to use that international technology
and using its global purpose X.121 addressing scheme.
1.2. by Tymnet (which was the only internationally used technology from
1977 to 1987) of which architecture used a meta-technology and
addressing scheme approach to interconnect every local and international
protocol and addressing scheme, and eventually services (my responsibility).
2. Vint Cerf's fundamental contribution
This is Vint's main contribution because it is universal. He states:
"The term "local" is used in a loose sense, here, since it means
"peculiar to the particular network" rather than "a network of limited
geographic extent." A satellite-based network such as the ARPA packet
satellite network, therefore, has "local" characteristics (e.g.
broadcast operation) even though it spans many thousands of square miles
geographically speaking." This, together with Louis Pouzin's catenetting
actually defined glocality as a local virtual network global reach. I.e.
what I call a VGN (virtual glocal network). This is something difficult
for IETF people to consider because they are only referred to twice in
RFCs as being outside of the "end to end".
2.1. In RFC 1958 (internet architecture): "The network's job is to
transmit datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything
else should be done at the fringes."
2.2. In RFC 5895 (mapping characters in IDNA2008): "It should be noted
that this document does not specify the behavior of a protocol that
appears "on the wire". It describes an operation that is to be applied
to user input in order to prepare that user input for use in an "on the
network" protocol. As unusual as this may be for a document concerning
Internet protocols, it is necessary to describe this operation for
implementors ... This because local typing, etc. is to be supported by
local subsidiarity in order "to reduce the surprise for users and is
likely to be slightly (or sometimes radically) different depending on
the locale of the user".
This means that mapping/unmapping is to happen outside "of the wire"
(end to end), at the fringe. IDNA2008 may call for fringe to fringe
operations. Those are "OSI presentation layer six" operations. However,
there is no "presentation layer six" in the internet layer stake. Hence,
the possibility of presentation layer six based "network application
services". I called them "Extended Services" in 1984, when I created the
Tymnet/Extended Services department. They came above the TCP like
internet "value added" services, above the IP like catenet "basic
services". Problem: one of the T/ES services was to transparently map 17
million IP addresses (RFC 923) to X.121 addresses in order to deploy its
global applications as network open services rather than edge
This extended addressing service not only allowed global competition
with the US, but it also put the Internet in bad shape because the
presentation layer six concerns security, languages, and intelligent
exchanges (through formats). The issue was architectonical: was EDP to
be computer (US UNIX industry) or network (Tymnet/PTT NETIX) centered?
In addition, it was a national security issue: UNIX internet systems had
no protection against non-US protected accesses established through
T/ES. It was also a strategic political/industrial issue within the
deregulation context where AT&T was dismantled, killing its own X.25
technology development. Tymnet then started proposing X.75/TCP/IP/Tymnet
technology to the seven FCC regulated "Baby Bells" (Regional Bell
Operating Companies) the same as they had already leased and operated
the five FCC regulated IRCs (international records carriers) and all the
other foreign Operators and PTTs (except BT) throughout the world.
As a result, the Tymnet 100% parent company was purchased by McDonnell
Douglas, the military-industrial leader of the time. They closed my T/ES
by mid-1986 and sent their own people to the first IETF meeting. The
digisphere had to be NSA-compatible.
3. Vint Cerf's second objective
Vint Cerf's second motivation was "to allow new networking technology to
be introduced into the existing catenet while remaining functionally
compatible with existing systems. This allows for the phased
introduction of new, and obsolescence of old, networks without requiring
a global simultaneous change."
In blunt and clear words, it was to seamlessly expand new TCP/IP
features in order to compete and overcome the Tymnet and ITU's X.75/25
In other words, to do worse than me! They fired me and froze Vint's
ambitions: this was the "statUS-quo" strategy.
However, Vint Cerf persisted, created ISOC, chaired ICANN, and joined
Google. His TCP/IP technology was more adequate to handle open source
than Tymnet and more versatile that the ITU approach. It called for 25
years but he eventually reached the verges of his second objective,
powerfully threatening the status quo. While the WCIT was to show that
the various foreign NSAs objected to the US NSA's global surveillance.
As a result, the State Department supported the ISOC/GSN cooperation,
the OpenStand statement, the minority vote in Dubai, the Snowdenia, the
NTIA statement, the Lynn St Amour/Don Tapscott report, etc. that
eventually led to the ICANN reshuffling, and to Jari Arko's
blog post stating :
"Our work is not yet complete. There are a number of steps still in
front of us. They include the following:
* Both the numbers and names communities need to complete their
proposals. We at the IETF will continue to engage with them with their
work, just as they assisted us with ours.
* Later, the IANA Transition Coordination Group
(<http://ianacg.org>ICG) will assemble a complete proposal and gather
community feedback on the result. When ready, they will submit the final
proposal to the NTIA.
* The NTIA must then consider and approve the proposal.
* Finally, it must be implemented. "
An IETF/WG on the IANA Transition had supported this IETF allegiance to
the NTIA, hence its decision to become the technical body of the
"GAFAMUSCC" RFC 6852 "global community" embracing "a modern paradigm for
standards where the economics of global markets, fueled by technological
advancements, drive global deployment of standards regardless of their
formal status. In this paradigm standards support interoperability,
foster global competition, are developed through an open participatory
process, and are voluntarily adopted globally. These voluntary standards
serve as building blocks for products and services targeted at meeting
the needs of the market and consumer, thereby driving innovation.
Innovation in turn contributes to the creation of new markets and the
growth and expansion of existing markets."
I appealed this with the IESG and IAB in order to make sure that this
was the true consensual decision of the IETF.
With the consequence documented there: the decision to start an XLIBRE
(<http://xlibre.net/>http://xlibre.net) RFC 6852 global community for
those wishing to research and test aside from the US/Google technically
correct use of the world digital ecosystem. Thinking of themselves as
their own VGN masters or Intelligent, Internet Users (IUsers), rather
than as ICANN (IN) DNS Class consumers.
B. The root of the confusion
The root of the confusion is that, as I indicated it, the ARPA, Tymnet
and PTT models covered both the lower and upper layers. Therefore,
people used PSS (packet switch PTT services) and the Internet as a
global digital solution without differentiating the layers.
This was increased by the habit to confuse the internet and the web.
Today, most of the World Digital Ecosystem Governance considerations are
internet centric. With laws around the world not making a difference
between "Internet", "the Internet", "the internet" and "internet" for
what is actually the Catenet Model for the ARPANET-internetworking.
In addition, there is an addressing system confusion between centralized
(Copernican, geocentric), decentralized (Newtonian, heliocentric) for
what is distributed (Einsteinian, cosmological).
C. The current open trend
There certainly is a US effort to build on the 1986/2012 momentum to
keep industrial, commercial, and political control of the WDE (world
digital ecosystem). However, experience and technology show that this is
a BUG. This bug is to want to "Be Unilaterally Global". This was a 1986
misunderstanding due to the 1977 push to the international catenet given
by the FCC (VAN license to Tymnet and Telenet and naming to Tymnet).
However, this was only a US "go" that matched the European "OKs"
simultaneously gathered by Robert Tréhin (head of the Tymnet European
Operations, TEO) in building the public catenet. In essence, an
international network is multilateral. Communications' multilaterality
is managed by the ITU.
When we interconnected the Internet catenet to the public global
catenet, the US had to protect it from the non-UNIX systems. This led to
the US strategy of replacing the ITU by the NTIA.
Firewalls have been deployed. IAB has eventually engaged in working on a
secure protocol stack. It is time now for the BUG to be fixed.
Actually this is urgent. Before the IoT deploys significantly because,
by nature, it has to be BUG proof. No one anywhere in the world wants
their fridge to be under US NSA and Google surveillance.
However, the way it is made must not hurt the network development and
stability. So Vint Cerf's second objective can only be deployed by
subsidiarity. To develop and deploy additional compatible services that
will eventually be able to replace the existing architecture.
The XLIBRE trend seems to be to:
1. capitalize on IP for the catenet for the basic services.
2. consider alternatives to the internet "TCP" added value. This has
started with XMPP, named content networking, SDN, etc.
3. develop and deploy "intersem" extended services experiments for a
multi-vendor LIBRE (LIBRE even of the Libre) smart interoperability.
The interest of this is that it respects the experience acquired since
the late 1960s. This is what I call "reconsiderative" innovation, which
is neither "incrementative" nor disruptive. If I would start it all
again, how would I do it, now that I can use all that I have learned and
others have developed since then?
D. Willi's position
More often than notWilli's position does not make IETF technical sense.
There are two ways to react:
- In bashing Willi for his lack of technical understanding.
- In protesting against the IETF for not publishing standards that:
--- Either permit developers to meet Willi's technical needs
--- Or documenting their RFCs within a graded framework the first layer
of which is understandable by Internet Users (IUsers) without needing to
be smart Intelligent Users (IUsers).
You will note that my language uses the same term ("IUser") in both
cases, and in many other cases such as is the case for
(http://xlibre.net/index.php/IUse) individual, informed, independent,
innovative, industrious, inventive, insatiable, imaginative, impartial,
impecunious, inevitable, inflexible, insisting, insupportable,
inexhaustible, ingenious, interactive, interdisciplinary, interested,
interrogator, interventionist, irreducible, irritating, etc. lead user.
For a merchant, the customer is the problem, for a technician it is the
user. And the customer and the user are king. I am not sure I understand
what Willi may ask, but I am sure I am to consider it carefully because
IETF and technically correct people are sustainable and
"incrementative", Willi asks us to be disruptive and what I call
reconsiderative. By the way, this is what the IAB reconsideration of the
protocol stack is exactly about.
The real need is for all of the Willis of the world, which Willi
represents, feel that their dataspheres are secure, at ease with their
networking experience, and the master of their own glocal digitality.
More information about the discuss