The success of the internet demonstrates that we now depend on network operators to assure that services like telephony work. The carriers are pushing back on neutrality because their business model is threatened by a level playing field. We should be encouraging innovative internet-native business models rather than working to preserve an industry threatened by innovation.
Confronted with the rapid development of the Internet, the traditional network is facing severe challenges. Therefore, it is imperative to accelerate the construction of global network infrastructure and build a new generation of Internet infrastructure to adapt to the Internet of Everything and the intelligent society. From November 28 to 30, 2017, "GNTC 2017 Global Network Technology Conference" organized by BII Group and CFIEC, will see a grand opening in Beijing.
In 2003, the world of network engineering was far different than it is today. For instance, EIGRP was still being implemented on the basis of its ability to support multi-protocol routing. SONET, and other optical technologies were just starting to come into their own, and all-optical switching was just beginning to be considered for large-scale deployment. What Hartley says of history holds true when looking back at what seems to be a former age: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
RIPE held its 75th meeting in Dubai in mid-October. As usual, there was a diverse set of presentations covering a broad range of activities that are taking place on today's Internet. The topics include issues relating to network operations, regulatory policies, peering and interconnection, communications practices within data centers, IPv6, the DNS, routing and network measurement. If that's not enough, the topic of the Internet of Things has been added as a Working Group in the RIPE pantheon. If you add address policy, database and RIPE services to the mix, you get a pretty packed five days with topics that would appeal to most Internet folks.
This week, I ran into an interesting article over at Free Code Camp about design tradeoffs... If you think you've found a design with no tradeoffs, well... Guess what? You've not looked hard enough. This is something I say often enough, of course, so what's the point? The point is this: We still don't really think about this in network design. This shows up in many different places; it's worth taking a look at just a few.
This is the fundamental question that the Internet Society is posing through the report just launched today, our 2017 Global Internet Report: Paths to Our Digital Future. The report is a window into the diverse views and perspectives of a global community that cares deeply about how the Internet will evolve and impact humanity over the next 5-7 years. We couldn't know what we would find when we embarked on the journey to map what stakeholders believe could shape the future of the Internet...
Back in the early 2000s, several notable Internet researchers were predicting the death of the Internet. Based on the narrative, the Internet infrastructure had not been designed for the scale that was being projected at the time, supposedly leading to fatal security and scalability issues. Yet somehow the Internet industry has always found a way to dodge the bullet at the very last minute.
Is it time for the IETF to give up? Martin Geddes makes a case that it is, in fact, time for the IETF to "fade out." The case he lays out is compelling -- first, the IETF is not really an engineering organization. There is a lot of running after "success modes," but very little consideration of failure modes and how they can and should be guarded against. Second, the IETF "the IETF takes on problems for which it lacks an ontological and epistemological framework to resolve." In essence, in Martin's view, the IETF is not about engineering, and hasn't ever really been.
The blog on the need for a new internet received quite a bit of (international) attention, and with the assistance of colleague John Day, we would like to elaborate a bit further on this. I mentioned RINA as a good example that can be used to have a look at how such a new internet should look like. Interestingly the basics are not all that new. Already in the 1970s, but certainly two decades later, there were plenty of telecoms and computer engineers who started to understand that the future telecommunications work would have more to do with computing than with telecoms.
My assertion is that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an institution whose remit is coming to a natural end. This is the result of spectacular success, not failure. However, continuing along the present path risks turning that success into a serious act of wrongdoing. This will leave a social and political legacy that will tarnish the collaborative technical achievements that have been accumulated thus far.