Subject: RE: [arch-d] Valid and Invalid Internet architectures and approaches

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:54:22 -0800

From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>The kind of architectural problems the Internet has been 
>seeing happen when we want to expand what the overall 
>system will do (either in functionality, or whatever), 
>and the basic framework won't do that thing easily, 
>and instead of rethinking the entire framework at some 
>suitable point, we make some small tweak just to do one 
>specific thing - or, worse yet, break some systemic 
>assumption, and do a kludge.

Noel's paragraph summarizes my view before I began my recent queries.
What got me started on this vector was the discovery that when I
identified a feature in RFC 2401 and 2401bis that demonstrably causes
irreparable harm to IP and the Internet with no beneficial side affects
(that I could discern, at least) did not result in the correction of
that bug but rather in the continuance of the damaging approach because
it was being increasingly deployed. 

Noel's writing assumes that we commonly have shared philosophical
perspectives/beliefs and a common goal of nuturing the Internet. My many
conversations with long-term IETF attendees at the Vancouver IETF
indicated that many of our number no longer believe this to be the case.
Many identified the substantial attendence of telephony people (yeah, I
used to be one too -- back in the 80s) with their conflicting technical
viewpoints as being the turning point for us. I believe, by contrast,
that our turning point occurred when we failed to act upon Steve
Deering's warnings by permitting the IP layer of the hourglass to grow
fat. 

Regardless, where do we go from here?

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:24:41 -0800

Eric,

> Regardless, where do we go from here?

To quote from Don Quixote the proof of the pudding is in the eating,
to which I add that the proof of the pudding is *not* in the debates
about the pudding.  

With this in mind I suggest we go to where the market demands. Yes,
one could argue that market demands could yield less than optimal
outcomes. But have we seen any other mechanism that consistenly
produces more optimal outcomes ?  And after all, what is "optimal"
in the first place ?

Yakov.

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:48:41 -0800

> produces more optimal outcomes ?  And after all, what is "optimal"

Yakov,

I know full well your feeling about a market driven approach as
opposed to centralized planning and for the most part, I share them.
However, there are certain things that a market is not likely to do.
I'd submit that exercising discretion, wisdom, and restraint are not
likely outcomes.  Instead, a market is more likely to exploit the
infrastructure and the process in whatever way is possible,
regardless of the side-effects.

A market is wholly unlikely to provide a focused effort in a particular
new area, as we have seen from the creation of the Internet itself.
In fact, as you well know, markets are going to only devote their
research dollars to those topics that can be monetized in the
relatively short term.  Markets never act for the common good.

We have seen from the economic side of the world that wholly
open and unregulated market dynamics can lead to some
unattractive results, such as the trusts.  As you well know, what
happened there was that external regulation intervened to
limit the behavior of the market.

What I'm suggesting then, is that for the Internet architecture
to continue to survive and not decay into utter entropy, there
needs to be some level of technological oversight that both
provides leadership to drive us in the right direction and ensure
that we avoid pitfalls.  Yes, there is a considerable amount of
care needed to create the right level of oversight, without
over controlling.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:01:17 -0800

> irreparable harm to IP and the Internet with no beneficial side affects
[...]

Any chance of a pointer to the problem, or will I not be sleeping
tonight?

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss