Small comment on the closing metaphor. I was thinking in the "UNIX world".
But I think this is a much bigger deal than that. So the comparison is really
better when you think about how macOS replaced UNIX when user experience
started to matter to enable growth in the world.
So if you wanted to improve the plumbing of Unix, it would have been a much
bigger deal to focus on Mach as it shaped the macOS evolution.
(I do realize that Linux is now the server platform of choice, and to a very
small extent, plays a role in CE routers based on WRT. But Linux is a tiny
specialized part of the Internet.)
So again, I think the core question is about the IP datagram and IP forwarding
components, and if you want that to evolve to be a lot better as a "neck of the
hourglass", keep your work laser-focused on this vague colossus called 5G by
all the participants, even though it is currently fragmented into all kinds of
warring camps at the technology level and at the applicaiton level. There will
be a grand convergence.
The worst possible case is that a new "neck of the interoperability hourglass"
evolves in 5G-land, and IP becomes a minor and optional part of the game.
-----Original Message-----
From: "David P. Reed" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:12am
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "bloat"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a
This, and the general question of how to get any change like this into the IP
forwarding components of existing networks, seems to be a very important and
tough question.
IETF seems to be unable to mandate anything, even when there is rough consensus
and working code.
The power has shifted to customers of equipment vendors.
The business innovation for those customers is now called 5G. That's not the
3GPP standard called 5G, but a vague buzzword marketing race that pretty much
wants to make the Internet slowly die.
Fronts of that are:
1. IoT. Cloud-server-based. Uses IP but doesn't care about it. A new "overlay
internet" that doesn't get built by IETF at all.
2. Small cells instead of hotspots. Key is that small cells are owned by a
telecom operator, and though on or near private premises, the premise owners
has no authority over what traffic they transport. Business model includes your
access provider owning the wireless airtime in your home or business. No more
Private Branch Exchange style deals. Instead you lease a cell or mesh of cells
from the cable or phone company you select as your 5G provider.
3. PWAs replace websites. Eventually, 5G operators own these "enclaves" on your
phone, Chromebook, Mac, ...that are controlled by the PWA vendor. The vendors,
like PC ISVs used to, are closed and proprietary distributed app makers. The
data of users is held in the enclaves and the "backends". Though W3C protocols
are used, including WebRTC, the way they are used by these businesses involves
harvesting data about people and their behavior, kept secret in cloud vaults to
which each PWA has secure access. These vaults form a privatized economy of
information used to predict and control user behavior through the PWAs that are
hosted on user devices.
Given that evolution of a new internetwork structure, how to get the plumbing
fixed?
Simple: move the ideas to be central to 5G networking.
At the moment, 5G is very much tangled with IP. That is rapidly changing as we
speak.
Also note that cablecos and cellularcos are converging to this definition of
5G. Some tech is different: 802.11 is shifting to be part of cableco' offering,
while short range high speed 5G NR and mmWave are the new cellular hotspots.
But both are WLANs, and 802.11x is no longer peer to peer. But the overall
business goals are identical. There is a competitive war.
Most of IETF wirk is irrelevant and will be time wasted. Thus vision of 5G as
replacing today's Internet is the context. Think Solaris as IETF Internet, 5G
as RedHat.
----Original Message-----
From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:20 am
To: "Holland, Jake" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Holland, Jake" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "bloat" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existingnetworks"
get-together in Prague coming week?
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
>
> Any operator nibbles on making this meeting happen?
Nobody else expressed any interest in this, so I kind of dropped the idea.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ecn-sane mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
_______________________________________________
Ecn-sane mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
