Re: 400G forwarding - how does it work?

[Saku Ytti]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 06:48,  wrote:

> How do you propose to fairly distribute market data feeds to the market if 
> not multicast?

I expected your aggressive support for small packets was for fintech.
An anecdote:

one of the largest exchanges in the world used MX for multicast
replication, which is btree or today utree replication, that is, each
NPU gets replicated packet wildy different time, therefore receivers
do. Which wasn't a problem for them, because they didn't know that's
how it works and suffered no negative consequence of this, which
arguably should have been a show stopper if we need receivers to
receive it at a remotely similar time.

Also, it is not in disagreement with my statement that it is not
addressable market, because this marker can use products which do not
do 64B wire-rate, for two separate reason either/and a) port is no
where near congested b) the market is not cost sensitive, they buy the
device with many WAN ports, and don't provision it so that they can't
get 64B on each actually used ports.


-- 
  ++ytti

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Jorge Amodio]

Recommended reading …

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/iot-value-set-to-accelerate-through-2030-where-and-how-to-capture-it

-Jorge

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Alexander Lyamin via NANOG]

nice one.
"There is no prophet in his own motherland"

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:21 AM Fred Baker  wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> >
> > Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also
> in 1995:
> >  “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in
> 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
>
> In 1998 I invited Mr Metcalfe to address the IETF on the collapse of the
> Internet, which he renewed his prediction of. He declined.

Peering with Google and Microsoft

[Oskar Borgqvist]

Hi Nanog

We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they are 
making their peering system better. I have received this answer for over 1 year.
The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out exact 
prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic from Sweden down to Germany 
and up again to Sweden again.
This has created a bit of a problem for us.

If anyone could help us with this it would be appreciated. Or can give an 
explanation.

Since then, we have also tried to get peering with Microsoft without success.  
We have tried to contact them via their peering email without success.  Would 
appreciate help here as well.

Sincerely,
Oskar Borgqvist
-- 
Oskar Borgqvist
CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
Mail: os...@karabro.se
Tele: +46 406 68 80 96

Vi bygger broar mellan internet och människor

Re: Peering with Google and Microsoft

[Siyuan Miao]

For Microsoft Peering you might need to create an Azure account. You can
find the how-to document below:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/howto-exchange-portal

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Oskar Borgqvist  wrote:

> Hi Nanog
>
> We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they
> are making their peering system better. I have received this answer for
> over 1 year.
> The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out
> exact prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic from Sweden down
> to Germany and up again to Sweden again.
> This has created a bit of a problem for us.
>
> If anyone could help us with this it would be appreciated. Or can give an
> explanation.
>
> Since then, we have also tried to get peering with Microsoft without
> success.  We have tried to contact them via their peering email without
> success.  Would appreciate help here as well.
>
> Sincerely,
> Oskar Borgqvist
> --
>
>
> *Oskar Borgqvist*CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
> Mail: os...@karabro.se
> Tele: +46 406 68 80 96
>
> *Vi bygger broar mellan internet och **människor*
>

Sflow/netflow/ipfix open source security projects

[Drew Weaver]

Hello,

I am interested in getting involved with an open source project in my spare 
time.

I thought that it may be useful to contribute to an open source project that 
uses flow data to check for lateral movement inside of networks and also to 
check for known bads in remote connections.

This seems like really low hanging fruit from a defense scenario.

I've tried googling around for something like this and I have come up short.

Is anyone aware of any such projects?

Thanks,
-Drew

RE: IoT - The end of the internet

[Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG]

Hello Saku

I do not share that view:

1) Thread uses 6LoWPAN so nodes are effectively IPv6 even though it doesn’t 
show in the air.

2) Wi-Sun is not Thread and it is already deployed by millions.

3) even LoRa (1.1.1) is going IPv6, using SCHC.

Regards,

Pascal

> -Original Message-
> From: Saku Ytti 
> Sent: mercredi 10 août 2022 7:14
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) 
> Cc: Mel Beckman ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet
> 
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 07:54, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
>  wrote:
> 
> > On a more positive note, the IPv6 IoT can be seen as an experiment on
> how we can scale the internet another order of magnitude or 2 without
> taking the power or the spectrum consumption to the parallel levels.
> 
> I think at least the next 20 years of IoT is thread (and wifi for high
> BW)+matter, and IoT devices won't have IP that is addressable even from
> the user LAN, you go via GW, none of which you configure.
> 
> Some bits of if look unnecessarily forced perspective, like the
> addressing scheme, instead of inlining your role in PDU we use this
> cutesy addressing scheme looks like bit forced marketing of IPv6,
> doesn't seem necessary but also not really an important decision either
> way. Overall I think thread+matter are well designed and they make me
> quite optimistic of reasonable IoT outcomes.
> 
> --
>   ++ytti

Re: Peering with Google and Microsoft

[Marco Paesani]

Hi Oskar,
for Google https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering

Regards,

-

Marco Paesani




Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: ma...@paesani.it




Il giorno mer 10 ago 2022 alle ore 13:47 Siyuan Miao  ha
scritto:

> For Microsoft Peering you might need to create an Azure account. You can
> find the how-to document below:
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/howto-exchange-portal
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Oskar Borgqvist  wrote:
>
>> Hi Nanog
>>
>> We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they
>> are making their peering system better. I have received this answer for
>> over 1 year.
>> The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out
>> exact prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic from Sweden down
>> to Germany and up again to Sweden again.
>> This has created a bit of a problem for us.
>>
>> If anyone could help us with this it would be appreciated. Or can give an
>> explanation.
>>
>> Since then, we have also tried to get peering with Microsoft without
>> success.  We have tried to contact them via their peering email without
>> success.  Would appreciate help here as well.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Oskar Borgqvist
>> --
>>
>>
>> *Oskar Borgqvist*CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
>> Mail: os...@karabro.se
>> Tele: +46 406 68 80 96
>>
>> *Vi bygger broar mellan internet och **människor*
>>
>

Re: Frontier Dark Fiber

[Mike]

Yes; There was absolutely some outright fraud here. Fraud, that even 
when pointed out exactly to the FCC staffers handling this, was simply 
ignored. This fraud claims in the rural parts of mendocino county, where 
I have operated for 20 years, claims there is 'competitive fiber' within 
500' of some of the CO's I would _die_ to have fiber access in, and 
which has never ever been possible. The fscking game playing here is 
unbelievable. ATT, how far you have fallen...and taking down America 
with you.







On 7/22/22 14:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
Here's the list of CLLI codes where you're no longer able to order 
dark fiber:



https://www.fcc.gov/clli-code-list


It seems odd as I look through there, finding COs with no competitive 
fiber and yet, they're on the list.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


*From: *"Paul Timmins" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Thursday, July 14, 2022 1:45:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Frontier Dark Fiber

Your rights under the ICA are dead. Since 2002 you were only able to 
order it if one end was in a tier 3 wirecenter, and it was killed in 
2021 as an orderable product.



https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/08/2020-25254/modernizing-unbundling-and-resale-requirements-in-an-era-of-next-generation-networks-and-services


There's an 8 year transition for existing unbundled dark fiber 
(February 28, 2029). Dark fiber loops were dead in 2002 under the TRRO.





On 7/13/22 07:45, Mike Hammett wrote:

Oh, and I forgot to mention that my ICA has it.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 



*From: *"Mike Hammett" 
*To: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Wednesday, July 13, 2022 6:40:47 AM
*Subject: *Frontier Dark Fiber

I'm looking for a contact at Frontier that can discuss dark fiber.

My current account exec says they don't offer it, yet prior
conversations with him and a previous SE revealed that they very
much did (just didn't have availability on the paths I wanted at
the time).

Their web site highlights it fairly proudly.


I'm aware that availability varies.

I'm aware that they likely don't want to sell it.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Tom Beecher]

It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been
constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to
assume the next problem will be unsolvable.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>
>
>

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Saku Ytti]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 12:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
 wrote:


Hey,

> I do not share that view:

I'm not sure how you read my view. I was not attempting to communicate
anything negative of IPv6. What I attempted to communicate

- near future looks to improve IOT security posture significantly, as
the IOT LAN won't share network with your user LAN, you'll go via GW
- thread+matter gives me optimism that IOT is being taken seriously
and good progress is being made, and the standards look largely well
thought out

> 1) Thread uses 6LoWPAN so nodes are effectively IPv6 even though it doesn’t 
> show in the air.

I believe I implied that strongly. Considering the 'forced marketing
of IPv6' on the thread addressing scheme. Mind you, I don't think it
is big deal, might even be positive, but I would have probably used
inline PDU to decide roles.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG]

>
>  because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential
> growth
>
Don't forget how we pontificate on how well we understand infinity.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:09 PM Chris Wright <
chris.wri...@commnetbroadband.com> wrote:

> That’s just humans in general, and it certainly isn’t limited to our
> outlook on the future of the internet. Big advancements will always take us
> by surprise because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending
> exponential growth. Someone please stop me here before I get on my
> Battery-EV soapbox. :D
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG  *On
> Behalf Of *Tom Beecher
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:25 AM
> *To:* Christopher Wolff 
> *Cc:* NANOG 
> *Subject:* Re: IoT - The end of the internet
>
>
>
> It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been
> constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to
> assume the next problem will be unsolvable.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>
>

-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: 400G forwarding - how does it work?

[Jeff Tantsura]

Sharada’s answers:

a) Yes, the run-to-completion model of Trio is superior to FP5/Nokia model when 
it comes to flexible processing engines. In Trio, the same engines can do 
either ingress or egress processing. Traditionally, there is more processing on 
ingress than on egress. When that happens, by design, less number of processing 
engines get used for egress, and more engines are available for ingress 
processing. Trio gives full flexibility. Unless Nokia is optimizing the engines 
(not all engines are identical, and some are area optimized for specific 
processing) to save overall area, I do not see any other advantage.  

b) Trio provides on-chip shallow buffering on ingress for fabric queues. We 
share this buffer between the slices on the same die. This gives us the 
flexibility to go easy on the size of SRAM we want to support for buffering. 

c) I didn't completely follow the question. Shallow ingress buffers are for 
fabric-facing queues, and we do not expect sustained fabric congestion. This, 
combined with the fact that we have some speed up over fabric, ensures that all 
WAN packets do reach the egress PFE buffer. On ingress, if packet processing is 
oversubscribed, we have line rate pre-classifiers do proper drops based on WAN 
queue priority.

Cheers,
Jeff

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 16:34, Jeff Tantsura  wrote:
> 
> 
> Saku,
>  
> I have forwarded your questions to Sharada.
>  
> All,
>  
> For this week – at 11:00am PST, Thursday 08/11, we will be joined by Guy 
> Caspary (co-founder of Leaba Semiconductor (acquired by Cisco -> SiliconOne)
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GDthnCj31_Y
>  
> For the next week, I’m planning to get one of main architects of Broadcom DNX 
>  (Jericho/Qumran/Ramon).
>  
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>  
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 12:15 AM
> To: Jeff Tantsura
> Cc: NANOG; Jeff Doyle
> Subject: Re: 400G forwarding - how does it work?
>  
> Thank you for this.
>  
> I wish there would have been a deeper dive to the lookup side. My open 
> questions
>  
> a) Trio model of packet stays in single PPE until done vs. FP model of
> line-of-PPE (identical cores). I don't understand the advantages of
> the FP model, the Trio model advantages are clear to me. Obviously the
> FP model has to have some advantages, what are they?
>  
> b) What exactly are the gains of putting two trios on-package in
> Trio6, there is no local-switching between WANs of trios in-package,
> they are, as far as I can tell, ships in the night, packets between
> trios go via fabric, as they would with separate Trios. I can
> understand the benefit of putting trio and HBM2 on the same package,
> to reduce distance so wattage goes down or frequency goes up.
>  
> c) What evolution they are thinking for the shallow ingress buffers
> for Trio6. The collateral damage potential is significant, because WAN
> which asks most, gets most, instead each having their fair share, thus
> potentially arbitrarily low rate WAN ingress might not get access to
> ingress buffer causing drop. Would it be practical in terms of
> wattage/area to add some sort of preQoS towards the shallow ingress
> buffer, so each WAN ingress has a fair guaranteed-rate to shallow
> buffers?
>  
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 at 02:18, Jeff Tantsura  wrote:
> > 
> > Apologies for garbage/HTMLed email, not sure what happened (thanks
> > Brian F for letting me know).
> > Anyway, the podcast with Juniper (mostly around Trio/Express) has been
> > broadcasted today and is available at
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1he8GjDBq9g
> > Next in the pipeline are:
> > Cisco SiliconOne
> > Broadcom DNX (Jericho/Qumran/Ramon)
> > For both - the guests are main architects of the silicon
> > 
> > Enjoy
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 5:06 PM Jeff Tantsura  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is not an advertisement but an attempt to help folks to better 
> > > understand networking HW.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of you might know (and love ) “between 0x2 nerds” podcast Jeff 
> > > Doyle and I have been hosting for a couple of years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Following up the discussion we have decided to dedicate a number of 
> > > upcoming podcasts to networking HW, the topic where more information and 
> > > better education is very much needed (no, you won’t have to sign NDA 
> > > before joining ), we have lined up a number of great guests, people who 
> > > design and build ASICs and can talk firsthand about evolution of 
> > > networking HW, complexity of the process, differences between fixed and 
> > > programmable pipelines, memories and databases. This Thursday (08/04) at 
> > > 11:00PST we are joined by one and only Sharada Yeluri - Sr. Director ASIC 
> > > at Juniper. Other vendors will be joining in the later episodes, usual 
> > > rules apply – no marketing, no BS.
> > >
> > > More to come, stay tuned.
> > >
> > > Live feed: https://lnkd.in/gk2x2ezZ
> > >
> > > Between 0x2 nerds playlist, videos will be published 

Re: Sflow/netflow/ipfix open source security projects

[Peter Phaal]

Sounds like an interesting project. You might want to take a look at
sflowtool to get started. The following article shows how to use sflowtool
to decode sFlow datagrams and includes a simple Python script matching IP
addresses against a known threat database.

https://blog.sflow.com/2018/12/sflow-to-json.html

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:19 AM Drew Weaver  wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am interested in getting involved with an open source project in my
> spare time.
>
>
>
> I thought that it may be useful to contribute to an open source project
> that uses flow data to check for lateral movement inside of networks and
> also to check for known bads in remote connections.
>
>
>
> This seems like really low hanging fruit from a defense scenario.
>
>
>
> I’ve tried googling around for something like this and I have come up
> short.
>
>
>
> Is anyone aware of any such projects?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Drew
>
>
>

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Randy Bush]

new at eleven

RE: IoT - The end of the internet

[Chris Wright]

That’s just humans in general, and it certainly isn’t limited to our outlook on 
the future of the internet. Big advancements will always take us by surprise 
because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential growth. 
Someone please stop me here before I get on my Battery-EV soapbox. :D

Chris

From: NANOG  On 
Behalf Of Tom Beecher
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Christopher Wolff 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet

It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been 
constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to 
assume the next problem will be unsolvable.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
mailto:ch...@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,

Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?

It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other 
scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Alexander Lyamin via NANOG]

It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications
that are implemented in this software.

And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having
builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".

  Cyberhippies

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
>> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>>
>> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
>> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>>
>
> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>
>
> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>
>
>
>
>>
>>

Re: IERS ponders reverse leapsecond...

[Billy Croan]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 15:53 Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Having at least a part of one foot in the global time and frequency
> community I'd say that it seems that the consensus is building toward
> eliminating leap seconds.
>
> There was a vote planned in 2012 to do so after a straw poll showed that
> most member countries was in favor to do so.   But in a typical committee
> move they elected to study it more before making a decision.
>


Yes.

After all, modern democratic governance can solve any problem..

Next we should vote on those pesky leap years. They're the work of Julius
Cesar, some old white guy who owned a tone of slaves, so anything he came
up with is "problematic" and gotta go; and if you disagree someone's gonna
burn down your Walgreens in a peaceful demonstration.

You know, I seem to remember some government body voting a while ago to
simplify Pi to exactly 3.

I think a much better answer to the nuisance of leap seconds (their
uncertainty), instead of dropping them all together, MIGHT be let them
build up for a century and deal with it every hundred years or every
thousand.  Maybe every decade?

That way when the scheduled time comes, you can be pretty confident an
adjustment is needed.  Whereas today its anyone's guess every 3 (6) months.

Then again, as fidgety as humanity is, saying no today might in practice BE
the same thing as putting it off until the next century.  Then in a few
generations they can play catch up if they really need to.

Maybe by 2300, we'll be able to snapshot Earth (and any other celestial
bodies then inhabited by man) and test the change in a 'sandbox' before
rolling it to prod.

Re: Sflow/netflow/ipfix open source security projects

[Dave]

Argus and the Argus Clients have quite a bit to offer in this line and they are 
open source. Check qosient.com  for the GitHub information.

Dave

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 7:37 AM, Peter Phaal  wrote:
> 
> Sounds like an interesting project. You might want to take a look at 
> sflowtool to get started. The following article shows how to use sflowtool to 
> decode sFlow datagrams and includes a simple Python script matching IP 
> addresses against a known threat database.
> 
> https://blog.sflow.com/2018/12/sflow-to-json.html 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:19 AM Drew Weaver  > wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  
> 
> I am interested in getting involved with an open source project in my spare 
> time.
> 
>  
> 
> I thought that it may be useful to contribute to an open source project that 
> uses flow data to check for lateral movement inside of networks and also to 
> check for known bads in remote connections.
> 
>  
> 
> This seems like really low hanging fruit from a defense scenario.
> 
>  
> 
> I’ve tried googling around for something like this and I have come up short.
> 
>  
> 
> Is anyone aware of any such projects?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Drew
> 
>  
> 

Re: IERS ponders reverse leapsecond...

[John R. Levine]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022, Billy Croan wrote:

I think a much better answer to the nuisance of leap seconds (their
uncertainty), instead of dropping them all together, MIGHT be let them
build up for a century and deal with it every hundred years or every
thousand.  Maybe every decade?


Sheesh. In practice that is what it means to stop doing leap seconds.  At 
some point the drift might be enough that people care enough to do a leap 
minute or leap hour, but by then it definitely won't be our problem.


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Christopher Wolff]

Hi NANOG;

I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when 
I should be sleeping.

Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the 
conversation.

Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round trip 
latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent 
nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.  

Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote 
control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.  

Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the 
traffic operations center.

I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and 
latency and traditional IP.  

Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and 
protocols that are low latency compliant?  Will we be building an infinite 
number of mobile edge compute boxes?  

If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help 
kickstart some interesting research.

Best,
Christopher

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin  wrote:
> 
> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications that 
> are implemented in this software.
> 
> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having 
> builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".
> 
>   Cyberhippies 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff  > wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?  
> 
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other 
> scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
> 
> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
> 
> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Ca By]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:30 PM Christopher Wolff 
wrote:

> Hi NANOG;
>
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting
> when I should be sleeping.
>
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the
> conversation.
>
> Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round
> trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to
> prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.
>
> Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote
> control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.
>
> Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from
> the traffic operations center.
>
> I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and
> latency and traditional IP.
>
> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and
> protocols that are low latency compliant?  Will we be building an infinite
> number of mobile edge compute boxes?
>
> If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help
> kickstart some interesting research.
>
> Best,
> Christopher
>

None of those use cases are real or cost justified.

1. VR will be rendered locally, not cell network dependents. The gpu in
your phone is evolving at a staggering pace. Look at Occulous or Magic Leap
(which was an amazing leader, and then died because VR is not real,
literally!)

2. Cars wont be remotely operated. That is not a thing, look at Waymo and
Tesla to see what the leaders are doing. Again, 100% local on board.

3. Same as 2




>
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin  wrote:
>
> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications
> that are implemented in this software.
>
> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that
> having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is
> OK".
>
>   Cyberhippies
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
>>> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>>>
>>> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
>>> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>>>
>>
>> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>>
>>
>> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Doug Barton]

On 8/9/22 10:40 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:


Possibly interesting:

This kind of idea came up w/in ICANN when they were first considering
the idea of adding 1000+ new generic and internationalized TLDs. Will
it cause a melt down?

Money was allocated, studies and simulations were done, reports were
tendered.

The conclusion was: Not likely a problem in terms of stress on the DNS
etc and that seems to have been correct even if there are other, more
social, complaints.

You could dig the studies up if you're interested, they should be on
the ICANN site.

But it's a reasonable approach to the question other than discovering
some structural flaw like we'll run out of IP addresses. Not likely
but just a "for instance" where we wouldn't need simulations to study.


I had the privilege of being part of that discussion in the early-mid 
2000's as IANA GM. Having come out of Yahoo! when it was still 
essentially the largest Internet company, I spent a lot of time 
explaining to folks that while it is important, the root DNS zone is 
still just a zone, and I had zones with tens of thousands of records in 
them at Yahoo! So you tell me how big you want the root zone to be, and 
I'll help scope the project for you.  :)



The studies and simulations were necessary in order to smooth the 
feathers of the non-technologists in the ICANN community, but we were 
just demonstrating what the technologists already knew.


FWIW,

Doug

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Mel Beckman]

Christopher,

What you’re really observing here is that today's technology does not yet 
enable these your chosen use cases. It may someday, but not today, not for any 
amount of money. 1990s modem technology didn’t enable streaming video either, 
but add 20 years of advancement, and today you can watch Seinfeld on your wrist.

Mankind has been to the moon, but you can’t have lunch on the moon next week, 
no matter how much money you have. But I have no doubt that eventually humans 
will be eating lunch on the moon whenever they like.

The Internet has never been “re-thought” throughout it’s entire history. 
Networking has advanced tremendously with stepwise refinement just fine. A 
“re-think” would simply be too expensive and too disruptive.

 -mel

On Aug 10, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Christopher Wolff 
mailto:ch...@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:

Hi NANOG;

I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when 
I should be sleeping.

Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the 
conversation.

Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round trip 
latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent 
nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.

Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote 
control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.

Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the 
traffic operations center.

I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and 
latency and traditional IP.

Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and 
protocols that are low latency compliant?  Will we be building an infinite 
number of mobile edge compute boxes?

If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help 
kickstart some interesting research.

Best,
Christopher

On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin 
mailto:l...@qrator.net>> wrote:

It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications that 
are implemented in this software.

And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having 
builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".

  Cyberhippies

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By 
mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
mailto:ch...@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,

Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?

It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other 
scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.

In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers

https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 20:06 , Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> LOL! You’re not the first person to underestimate the resilience of the 
> Internet:
> 
> “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” – Ken Olsen, 
> CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation (now defunct), 1977

Technically not defunct so much as absorbed into their previously smaller 
competitor Hewlett Packard.

> "I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10 years," 
> Bill Gates Comdex 1994.

I was there when he said this. My reaction was “I see even less potential for 
Windows in that timeframe.” Tragically, I was wrong. Fortunately, so was he.

> 27 February 1995, Newsweek magazine, quoting astronomer Clifford Stoll:
> “The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM 
> can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change 
> the way government works. How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book 
> on disc.  Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts 
> that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.”
> (17 years later, Newsweek ceased print publication and became exclusively 
> available online).

In fairness, at the time, the tablet and e-ink displays weren’t even on any 
developer’s RADAR. Until we had hand-held portable tablets with cellular 
internet capability (also in its infancy in 1995), replacing that wall between 
us and our fellow commuters (the newspaper or magazine) with digital media was 
unlikely.

> Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in 
> 1995:
>  “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 
> catastrophically collapse.”

Yeah, but it was amusing that he actually ate his words, literally (though not 
very smart on his part).

> Clifford Stoll 1998: “We’re promised instant catalog shopping–just point and 
> click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make 
> restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become 
> obsolete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than 
> the entire Internet handles in a month?”

These days, that would take one heck of a mall… Especially when you consider 
that most wholesalers are now doing most of their order entry via the internet 
direct from their customers.

> Of course, it’s not all cake and roses:
> 
> “Two years from now, spam will be solved.” – Bill Gates (2004)

It’s not the first time he’s been wrong even in this message. Likely it won’t 
be the last.

Owen

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Break, probably not… Require IPv6 eventually? Probably.

Owen


> On Aug 9, 2022, at 19:22 , Christopher Wolff  wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?  
> 
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other 
> scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
> 
> 

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Jorge Amodio]

Unless you are running in a very slow and resource constrained piece of 
hardware, most of the latency comes from the link layer, not from the protocol 
stack.

If your concern is delay and disruption, check out DTN (Delay/Disruption 
Tolerant Networking,) and Bundle Protocol, we have a WG in IETF working on it.

Initial motivation was inter planetary communications, but the technology is 
also being used for terrestrial applications such as IoT.

Cheers
-Jorge

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 5:30 PM, Christopher Wolff  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi NANOG;
> 
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting 
> when I should be sleeping.
> 
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the 
> conversation.
> 
> Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round trip 
> latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent 
> nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.  
> 
> Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote 
> control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.  
> 
> Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from 
> the traffic operations center.
> 
> I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and 
> latency and traditional IP.  
> 
> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and 
> protocols that are low latency compliant?  Will we be building an infinite 
> number of mobile edge compute boxes?  
> 
> If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help 
> kickstart some interesting research.
> 
> Best,
> Christopher
> 
>> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin  wrote:
>> 
>> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications 
>> that are implemented in this software.
>> 
>> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having 
>> builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".
>> 
>>   Cyberhippies 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff  
 wrote:
 Hi folks,
 
 Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
 ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?  
 
 It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or 
 other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>>> 
>>> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>>> 
>>> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 
> 

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:51 , Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> Christopher,
> 
> What you’re really observing here is that today's technology does not yet 
> enable these your chosen use cases. It may someday, but not today, not for 
> any amount of money. 1990s modem technology didn’t enable streaming video 
> either, but add 20 years of advancement, and today you can watch Seinfeld on 
> your wrist.
> 
> Mankind has been to the moon, but you can’t have lunch on the moon next week, 
> no matter how much money you have. But I have no doubt that eventually humans 
> will be eating lunch on the moon whenever they like. 
> 
> The Internet has never been “re-thought” throughout it’s entire history. 
> Networking has advanced tremendously with stepwise refinement just fine. A 
> “re-think” would simply be too expensive and too disruptive.

The abysmal slow rate of IPv6 adoption proves this better than any amount of 
pontification could.

Despite all of the obvious benefits of bigger addressing, people continue to 
cling to their IPv4.

The saddest part of the situation is that the costs they impose are easily 
externalized onto those that are not lagging behind.

Owen

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Wolff
 wrote:
> Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round trip 
> latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent 
> nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.

Hi Christopher,

Not really IOT. Call it Netflix Part Two. Look for the discussions
around Netflix's impact on the Internet. I recall some folks
calculating what it would take for every household to stream their
television via the Internet and fretting over it. Needless to say,
folks are streaming their TV and the Internet hasn't collapsed.


> Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote 
> control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.
>
> Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from 
> the traffic operations center.

These sound like absolutely terrible designs. IoT does NOT imply that
all the compute is located remotely or that local comms can or should
be relayed through a central system. So your near-miss sensor sends
its packets out local radio, cryptographically authenticated with a
key the vehicle collected from central while it was still two blocks
away. No latency difference.

Think of these devices like the Mars Rovers. The Mars Rovers aren't
operated by a dude with a screen and a joystick. They receive
directions from central but follow them autonomously. If in the course
of following the directions they exceed any of dozens of safety
parameters, they stop and wait for new instructions.


> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and 
> protocols that are low latency compliant?

No, because speed of light constraints will continue to cause us to
implement the latency-critical components close to the user. It's
basic physics man.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:29 , Christopher Wolff  wrote:
> 
> Hi NANOG;
> 
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting 
> when I should be sleeping.
> 
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the 
> conversation.
> 
> Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round trip 
> latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent 
> nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.  

That’s only true if you’re trying to send stereo full frame video to the 
goggles from a remote location. If you have intelligence on the user device and 
can render a lot of the stuff locally, that bandwidth requirement drops 
dramatically.

> Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote 
> control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.  

An autonomous vehicle shouldn’t be taking cellular data into account for 
stopping distances… Onboard sensors should be able to stop the vehicle when 
time is critical.

> Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from 
> the traffic operations center.

I’m not sure I understand the meaning of this statement. Is the traffic 
operations center controlling the vehicles approaching the intersection? Why 
would the vehicles not be able to sort this out autonomously?

> I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and 
> latency and traditional IP.  

I hypothesize that if you are doing life support or life critical operations 
over traditional IP, you are doing something very very wrong and people will 
suffer dire consequences as a result.

> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and 
> protocols that are low latency compliant?  Will we be building an infinite 
> number of mobile edge compute boxes?  

It sounds like your idea of how tomorrow’s applications will operate will 
require some re-thinking. I know my Tesla, for example, when in full 
self-driving (beta) mode does not phone home
before it decides to hit the brakes, swerve, or take other emergency actions 
for example.

> If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help 
> kickstart some interesting research.

I think that the issue will usually be obviated by moving the time-critical 
decisions closer to the edge (or never centralizing them to begin with).

Owen

> 
> Best,
> Christopher
> 
>> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin > > wrote:
>> 
>> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications 
>> that are implemented in this software.
>> 
>> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having 
>> builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".
>> 
>>   Cyberhippies 
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff > > wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
>> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?  
>> 
>> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or 
>> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>> 
>> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>> 
>> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>