[governance] The decentralization of IP addresses

[JFC Morfin]

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


JC,

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 societal/political stability.

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 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt>https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt) 
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 contribution.


1. Vint Cerf's first objective (specific to the internet use of the catenet):

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 proprietary businesses.

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 capabilities.

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 
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/>2015/01/08 
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. 
<http://iuwg.net/index.php/History#Evolution>http://iuwg.net/index.php/History#Evolution. 
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.

jfc  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151209/a54b4961/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t