Hey Dave, I admire your desire for "clarity" on this subject, but fear you will be disappointed.
ISTM that the success of changes to the infrastructure depends on the value those changes deliver to participants in the Internet economy -- i.e., the pain of the problem they solve. Your two examples are actually very appropriate here: IPv6 and DNSSEC both moved very slowly until (1) people started to not have enough numbers to grow their networks, and (2) Dan Kaminsky put the fear of God in people. So the question is rather how many problems there are in the current infrastructure that cause people enough pain to do something. I think there are at least a couple (improving BGP security, for example), and the number will probably slowly shrink over time, but in the long run, I expect there will ultimately always be a few big things that need to be done that can't be done in end systems. --Richard On Dec 31, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Folks, > > Feliz Año Nuevo! > > One of the lessons of efforts such as IPv6 and DNSSEC should be that making > changes to the global infrastructure of the Internet is extremely difficult. > The technical details are difficult -- especially if the change seeks to work > with an existing base of functionality -- and the administration and > operation details are difficult. And the time it takes to achieve critical > mass is quite long. > > However we continue to hear claims and see design efforts that are based on > the view that changing the infrastructure is easier than changing > end-systems.[1] The fact that the infrastructure is controlled by far fewer > actors and organizations makes it natural to assume that this preference is > well-founded and correct. > > But does the Internet's track record substantiate this view? > > So I would like to ask for folks to help the community develop some concrete > information about this, by adding entries and comments to the IETF's Outcomes > Wiki: > > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/>[2] > > If there is a piece of work that was targeting change to the infrastructure > or the creation of new infrastructure, please add an entry for it to the > wiki. This will provide an explicit statement about the history and degree of > success of that effort. > > Congestion control, mobility, multipath, multicasting, new transport, MIME, > etc. Anything that enables higher-level capabilities. > > Some infrastructure changes are designed for the router level of things and > some are designed for host-level. But they provide underlying services that > can then be used for better performance, reliability, or control or to make > new applications viable. > > My expectation is that we are going to find that such efforts are difficult, > no matter where they are put, but I suspect we will find that the ones > destined for the router level of things are the hardest. > > Prove me wrong by adding entries to the Outcomes wiki that show otherwise... > > Or prove me correct. > > Having clarity about this topic could make for a pretty good start of the new > year... > > > d/ > > > [1] Serious pursuit of this topic requires some agreement about the > definition of "infrastructure" and quite possibly agreement on "end-system". > For now, let's just say that infrastructure is anything that provides > services to a layer above. That makes TCP a kind of infrastructure service. > But, then, the environment for controlling it is quite different, since it > sits in hosts, not routers. So perhaps we need some additional constructs > for the "venue" of infrastructure service?. > > > [2] We might discover that it will help to add a column to the wiki's > tables. That's fine to explore on the wiki's mailing list: > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes> > > Given footnote [1], an example of a change might be a column that notes where > the service resides in terms of Internet architecture. Granularity that > distinguishes more than just host-vs-router might be helpful, since the > Internet's range of "tussle" boundaries has grown more complex, given the > operational reality of PCs, servers, organizational nets, local ISPs and > transit nets... > > In the absence of agreements to make changes, use the Comments column in the > wiki, for recording information that might warrant a new column in the table. > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
