Re: [At-Large] (No so) Serious Allegations
"JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
In terms of Internet architecture this creates the opposition between the ICANN (de?)centralized vision and the distributed nature of the Internet. Today we have an ongoing discussion at the IETF (BEHAVE) where the question is about NAT66 (an IPv6:IPv6 NAT version - the Internet Draft is being introduced by very serious IETF leaders, in order to try to control what NAT could do under IPv6). The debate shows that NAT66 will not only be built and deploy, their features be much more developped than the IETF proposition, but that they will support a large diversity of IPv6 Realms - hence a large diversity of DNS roots.
Most of the IETF old members hope this will not go that way.
I've also been following the discussion on the IETF BEHAVE list with great interest. To tell you the truth, I wasn't quite sure about the initial reasons for the heated debate between the people for NAT66 and the people against NAT66. I took 24h to think about it and for a moment, came to the same conclusions about multiple DNS roots & multiple IPv6 realms. With NAT66, the concept of network number uniqueness which was a key proposed feature of IPv6, disappears. Then I thought again - and was taken back to the days when the Internet was not as well integrated as it is today. You know, the days when you needed to route your email through gateways & the like. Sure, there were many other networks out there, but you know what I found to be most amusing is that historically they all merged with the Internet. I am therefore neither "for" or "against" the idea of NAT66. I've seen several alternative DNS roots rise and fall. If organisations wish to launch their own Internet, their own root servers, their own interfacing with the current Internet through IPv6 NAT, sure, go ahead! Let the market decide what's best. Just: 1. don't ask me to pay for it, whether through my taxes or whatever 2. don't restrict the freedom I currently have in using today's Internet 3. don't impose your alternative network on me 4. don't take me back to the dark days of telco monopoly Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Well said Olivier - thank you! Internet is an International Network.Period. (maybe and unless we link upwith other planets!? This decentralisation/ decetralization or whatever it may be called - is not and will not be for the benefit of the global community (or will it be?) For once the world has discovered something common for all - what is the problem? Is it because everybody might/will benefit from it? Yes/No (no 3rd choice in this). One wonders why so much noise is made on this issue. It is like one wanting to change the (+, -, / and x) in Arithmetic/ Mathematics. There is a need to have a diplomatic way to approach this issue - not purely technical approach. By the way I hope non-English speakers get a translation of this discussion - I wrote it in English (another thorn in the bush ) as to "why English is the Internet language" yassin
From: ocl@gih.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:46:33 +0100> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (No so) Serious Allegations> > "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:> > > In terms of Internet architecture this creates the opposition> between> > the ICANN (de?)centralized vision and the distributed nature of the> > Internet. Today we have an ongoing discussion at the IETF (BEHAVE)> > where the question is about NAT66 (an IPv6:IPv6 NAT version - the> > Internet Draft is being introduced by very serious IETF leaders, in> > order to try to control what NAT could do under IPv6). The debate> > shows that NAT66 will not only be built and deploy, their features> be> > much more developped than the IETF proposition, but that they will> > support a large diversity of IPv6 Realms - hence a large diversity> of> > DNS roots.> >> > Most of the IETF old members hope this will not go that way.> > I've also been following the discussion on the IETF BEHAVE list with> great interest.> > To tell you the truth, I wasn't quite sure about the initial reasons> for the heated debate between the people for NAT66 and the people> against NAT66. I took 24h to think about it and for a moment, came to> the same conclusions about multiple DNS roots & multiple IPv6 realms.> With NAT66, the concept of network number uniqueness which was a key> proposed feature of IPv6, disappears.> > Then I thought again - and was taken back to the days when the> Internet was not as well integrated as it is today. You know, the days> when you needed to route your email through gateways & the like. Sure,> there were many other networks out there, but you know what I found to> be most amusing is that historically they all merged with the> Internet.> > I am therefore neither "for" or "against" the idea of NAT66. I've seen> several alternative DNS roots rise and fall. If organisations wish to> launch their own Internet, their own root servers, their own> interfacing with the current Internet through IPv6 NAT, sure, go> ahead! Let the market decide what's best.> > Just:> 1. don't ask me to pay for it, whether through my taxes or whatever> 2. don't restrict the freedom I currently have in using today's> Internet> 3. don't impose your alternative network on me> 4. don't take me back to the dark days of telco monopoly> > Warm regards,> > Olivier> > -- > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D> Global Information Highway Ltd> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html> > > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=w...
I am posting this reply to the GA as although I am a member of the at-large - for some reason I receive emails but can't post. So for the record here is my response to some very important issues concerning root. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003@hotmail.com>wrote:
Well said Olivier - thank you!
Internet is an International Network.Period. (maybe and unless we link upwith other planets!?
This decentralisation/ decetralization or whatever it may be called - is not and will not be for the benefit of the global community (or will it be?)
Well I don't know about the benefit to the global community with respect to a decentralized situation. Theres a lot of politics - which amounts to a lot of bull ****. Decentralization is the way we are headed of the last few years are any indication. Decentralization is also good for the all the networks over all. The Internet is in fact a decentralized model when it comes to control. Thats its design. The networks that use the IANA / DOC root create a lot of error and traffic overhead. The Internet has grown around the IANA root - not with it - as a result the IANA root gets a lot of bogus traffic. The error and traffic overload on the IANA root was well documented in 2003. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ The problem has grown exponentially as China has added National Infrastructure, along with the Arabs, the Turks http://www.publicroot.org/news-2005-06-23-tbd.html and many more to follow. Nat 66 offers new potential in establishing addressing systems and less dependence on a core function which is now addressed via the iana doc contract. Your right to say that the world has discovered something common for all. The problem here is that it takes away control from the people now benefiting from it. DNSSEC is just another silly attempt to create an Internet monopoly amongst a small group of people - the ICANN cartel. Nat66 is opposed just because it will cost the ICANN cartel money and they may lose their monopoly. I agree with you that everyone will might or will benefit from it. But the ICANN cartel at the IETF will block it because people will lose power and that translates into cold hard cash. The IETF is a joke these days. The things they let by are scary - like DNSSEC. Any nation on earth who investigates DNSSEC would not want anything to do with it. Thats why all the noise is made on this issue. Your mathematical reference to the noise being like "one wanting to change the (+, -, / and x) in Arithmetic/ Mathematics" is funny. Its however less mathematics then it is accounting. More power to the people means extra " +" (pluses) for everyone - but it also means more " - " minuses for the various Isociety cartels. This is a bit off topic but I disagree with you that English is the Internet language. The Internet does not have a spoken or written language except for various programing languages. All the Internet does well is communicate from one end point to another. The English used on the Internet is more to do with human communications. English is more a global language. A lot of people so naturally it will predominate on the net. But the Internet is also about harnessing computer power. And at todays technological advancements I can see very good translation programs bringing us together. The trick is to build a protocol for interpretation in inter human language sets. Just my two cents. Joe Baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
Your emails are coming through to the At-Large list Joe, FYI. (that's how I got it) On 28/11/2008 02:14, "Joe Baptista" <baptista@publicroot.org> wrote: I am posting this reply to the GA as although I am a member of the at-large - for some reason I receive emails but can't post. So for the record here is my response to some very important issues concerning root. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003@hotmail.com>wrote:
Well said Olivier - thank you!
Internet is an International Network.Period. (maybe and unless we link upwith other planets!?
This decentralisation/ decetralization or whatever it may be called - is not and will not be for the benefit of the global community (or will it be?)
Well I don't know about the benefit to the global community with respect to a decentralized situation. Theres a lot of politics - which amounts to a lot of bull ****. Decentralization is the way we are headed of the last few years are any indication. Decentralization is also good for the all the networks over all. The Internet is in fact a decentralized model when it comes to control. Thats its design. The networks that use the IANA / DOC root create a lot of error and traffic overhead. The Internet has grown around the IANA root - not with it - as a result the IANA root gets a lot of bogus traffic. The error and traffic overload on the IANA root was well documented in 2003. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ The problem has grown exponentially as China has added National Infrastructure, along with the Arabs, the Turks http://www.publicroot.org/news-2005-06-23-tbd.html and many more to follow. Nat 66 offers new potential in establishing addressing systems and less dependence on a core function which is now addressed via the iana doc contract. Your right to say that the world has discovered something common for all. The problem here is that it takes away control from the people now benefiting from it. DNSSEC is just another silly attempt to create an Internet monopoly amongst a small group of people - the ICANN cartel. Nat66 is opposed just because it will cost the ICANN cartel money and they may lose their monopoly. I agree with you that everyone will might or will benefit from it. But the ICANN cartel at the IETF will block it because people will lose power and that translates into cold hard cash. The IETF is a joke these days. The things they let by are scary - like DNSSEC. Any nation on earth who investigates DNSSEC would not want anything to do with it. Thats why all the noise is made on this issue. Your mathematical reference to the noise being like "one wanting to change the (+, -, / and x) in Arithmetic/ Mathematics" is funny. Its however less mathematics then it is accounting. More power to the people means extra " +" (pluses) for everyone - but it also means more " - " minuses for the various Isociety cartels. This is a bit off topic but I disagree with you that English is the Internet language. The Internet does not have a spoken or written language except for various programing languages. All the Internet does well is communicate from one end point to another. The English used on the Internet is more to do with human communications. English is more a global language. A lot of people so naturally it will predominate on the net. But the Internet is also about harnessing computer power. And at todays technological advancements I can see very good translation programs bringing us together. The trick is to build a protocol for interpretation in inter human language sets. Just my two cents. Joe Baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
At 01:18 28/11/2008, Yassin Mshana wrote:
Internet is an International Network.Period. (maybe and unless we link upwith other planets!?
Dear Yassin, This is not a technical definition. It is a fact.
This decentralisation/ decetralization or whatever it may be called - is not and will not be for the benefit of the global community (or will it be?)
Decentralisation is the IETF doctrine and core value (RFC 3935). The problem we face today is this an outdated concept. Hence the constaints imposed on the people of the world (be essence there is not such a thing as the "global community": this is the mankind).
For once the world has discovered something common for all - what is the problem?
May will you want to consider the IETF, ICANN, ITU, GAC, IGF, ISOC, etc. to list the problems this discovery leads to.
Is it because everybody might/will benefit from it? Yes/No (no 3rd choice in this). One wonders why so much noise is made on this issue. It is like one wanting to change the (+, -, / and x) in Arithmetic/ Mathematics.
I am afraid this is exactly where reticular (networked) thinking leads to. When mankind changes its way of thinking one names this a paradigm change. This is what networking and resulting systemic helps understanding, something we first observed with Reletivity, Quantic theories, Big Bang, etc. you can also relate to the fact that there are five times more people on earth with more needs and longer life duration.
There is a need to have a diplomatic way to approach this issue - not purely technical approach.
Unfortunately, politics have learned to be suspicous about technicians from the early cybernetic experoence (mid 1900) and tend to consider the governance of the "Information Society" while forgeting the technical soil that virtuality implies. This is why we have to be very carefull at not sawing the branch we are sitting on. jfc
At 23:46 27/11/2008, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
To tell you the truth, I wasn't quite sure about the initial reasons for the heated debate between the people for NAT66 and the people against NAT66. I took 24h to think about it and for a moment, came to the same conclusions about multiple DNS roots & multiple IPv6 realms. With NAT66, the concept of network number uniqueness which was a key proposed feature of IPv6, disappears.
To tell you the truth I did not yet made my mind about what they exactly have in mind and what the implications. From what I grasp, they want this to be actually assessed? So, my priority is to set-up a dialog space between IETF and Internet users and the IETF Internet standard process. I think it is pretty urgent because with IPv6, DNSSEC, etc. i feel that the polylogue between all the concerned parties become totally out of reasonable control.
Then I thought again - and was taken back to the days when the Internet was not as well integrated as it is today. You know, the days when you needed to route your email through gateways & the like. Sure, there were many other networks out there, but you know what I found to be most amusing is that historically they all merged with the Internet.
There certainly were cons and pros. We should try first to seat and not to duplicate the cons and focus on the pros. But there is such a legacy ...
I am therefore neither "for" or "against" the idea of NAT66. I've seen several alternative DNS roots rise and fall. If organisations wish to launch their own Internet, their own root servers, their own interfacing with the current Internet through IPv6 NAT, sure, go ahead! Let the market decide what's best.
I do not think we are actually engaged in any "alternative DNS" (there never were alternative DNS except in IETF/ICANN fears and Vint Cerf ".biz" trick) but a progressive understanding of the meaning of ICANN ICP-3. france@large engaged into the community "dot-root" test-bed, respecting the ICP-3 request. Our conclusion is that there is a unique virtual root matrix to be supported that corresponds to the distributed nature of the Internet. Also, that the current IETF vision is not ready to accept and support it, but that the technology can probably support it, as well as a progressive transition. But all that must now be worked on, discussed, proposed, verified, documented, tested along new ways of thinking adapted to our present time. This is NOT that easy! The problem is in the people heads, more than in the machines and protocols.
Just: 1. don't ask me to pay for it, whether through my taxes or whatever
Correct. This is why we must stop the IPv6 political campaigning and replace it by s self-financing approach. I think this is possible. But the first thing is to convince ISOC that an ISOC IPv6 Users Chapter would really help discuss this. The IPv6 TF supports the idea. ISOC is afraid. The motto should be "IPv6 what for?" instead of "someone must pay for IPv6"
2. don't restrict the freedom I currently have in using today's Internet
I am afraid that IETF is currently precisly doing it unwillingly. This is where we need to help. Multitier Internet threat is everywhere. IMHO we can protect our freedom, but we need to understand what is our _user_ architecture. IMHO this is really what @larges should be at. Anywhay, I hope my IETF list will modestly help.
3. don't impose your alternative network on me
I do not think there is any alternative nework. There is a mess. Who really knows today what IPv6 is? Margaret Wasserman and Fred Baker try to specify 66NATs against a 66HyperNATs diversity. It is probably a good idea in order to smooth the transition. However, what they probably show is that the very nature of the Internet is to be an InterNAT (however the word NAT is just for one of the functions to be required on Smart "Interboxes").
4. don't take me back to the dark days of telco monopoly
:-) I was the one who started to field unlock monopolies. I was very happy the day I obtained the first "triangle", where traffic from three monopolies were mixed - together with private traffic (US, Belgium, Netherlands and ESA). That was more than 25 years ago. I did not expect the US deregulation to create something worst than telco monopolistic centralisation. I hope we can free the Internet from the US consortia decentralisation before I die :-) jfc
participants (5)
-
JFC Morfin -
Joe Baptista -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Yassin Mshana