From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from know-smtprelay-omc-9.server.virginmedia.net (know-smtprelay-omc-9.server.virginmedia.net [80.0.253.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74F9E3B2A4 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.163] ([86.25.31.173]) by know-smtprelay-9-imp with bizsmtp id mKYX1w00F3k6kaW01KYXwc; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:32:32 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [86.25.31.173] X-Authenticated-User: j.lancett@ntlworld.com X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.1 cv=Z+YRZylA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=F44zsh1v6BZ7hS775jkpAw==:117 a=F44zsh1v6BZ7hS775jkpAw==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=x7bEGLp0ZPQA:10 a=pe-9iSHtAAAA:8 a=w9bQZt_RAAAA:8 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=DYVMohs5RbP4cFjbbIEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=5XOw8dlCKA2y7jWj-5bZ:22 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 To: dpreed@reed.com, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" References: <1513358282.897128026@apps.rackspace.com> From: tapper Message-ID: <72295b28-0574-40fc-fbe8-97881e2a362a@ntlworld.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:32:30 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:59.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/59.0a1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1513358282.897128026@apps.rackspace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ntlworld.com; s=meg.feb2017; t=1513366352; bh=Reni8ClfTDAtBfLzQjbyqfrotdrXhjsa+5QawcU6mx8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cgjljNTNHJrgU3DbYOkNh3zo7zM+N+V8YUUEmaErHeC8RQzi44vhnYy2XRfXZZAdr MnuQNvMpGztoNPL4GoYjAOuHIUWJE5Elcn3DntdEEAmoKKUDBcnEGa/R2I5ZE6h4FN VH9XL1WtL8k8sVaVYHyGKKI5r8JWjt5MOAUhWAlSMELyLLZmKzjgc777TqsIKKLPud UQ4D6qG+JUflwR2NXNBmMa2v2kjzWOC9WpNTDjvudTJWpcHZX1qkk15eEmy1G4J9jR OH5lnhS/Rg71zKHUzTX4l5rBpqzm+T75DLyLS11uITadlyTg0BENIqcHwa16eeLK36 5gCIRLyk8scCg== Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Random thought - reactions? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:32:33 -0000 Motherboard & VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5djd7/motherboard-and-vice-are-building-a-community-internet-network-to-protect-net-neutrality It seems that people are all thinking the same thing, but coming up with different things! The internet will never die! On 15/12/2017 17:18, dpreed@reed.com wrote: > The disaster in the FCC's move to reverse the Open Internet Order will > probably continue. > > As some of you may know, but most probably don't, I have a somewhat > nuanced view of the best way to preserve what is called network > neutrality. That's because I have a precise definition of what the > Internet architecture is based on. Essentially, access providers (or for > that matter anyone who stands between one part of the Internet and > another) should forward packets as specified in the IPv4 or IPv6 header, > with best efforts. In particular, that means: meet the protocol > specification of the IP layer, base routing, queueing, and discarding > only on the information therein contained. "Best efforts" does not mean > queueing or discarding packets selectively based on addresses or > protocol. However, ToS can be used. > > It turns out that the Open Internet Order pretty much matched that > definition in effect. > > But we are about to enter a new age, where arbitrary content inspection, > selective queueing, and modification are allowed at the access provider > switching fabric. Based on any information in the packet. Also, data > collection and archiving of content information (e.g. wiretapping) is > likely to be OK as well, as long as the data is "protected" and there is > a contract with the customer that sort of discloses the potential of > such collection. > > Companies like Sandvine, Ellacoya, Phorm, NebuAd and more modern > instantiations will be ramping up production of "Deep Packet Inspection" > gear that can be customized and deployed by access providers. (10-15 > years ago they ramped up to sell exactly this capability to access > providers). > > I have never viewed the FCC rulemaking approach as the right way for the > Internet to deal with this attack by one piece of the transport network > on the integrity of the Internet architecture as a whole. However, it > was a very practical solution until now. > > So I've been thinking hard about this for the last 15 years. > > The best and most open Internet we had for end users was available when > the Internet was "dialup". That includes modems, ISDN digital, and some > DSL connectivity to non-telco POPs. There was competition that meant > that screwing with traffic, if detected, could be dealt with by > switching what were then called ISPs - owners of POPs. This died when > Cable and Telco monopolies eliminated the POPs, and made it impossible > to decide where to connect the "last mile" to the Internet. > > So can we recreate "dialup"?  Well, I think we can. We have the > technical ingredients. The key model here is IPv6 "tunnel brokers" (I > don't mean the specific ones we have today, which are undercapitalized > and not widely dispersed). Today's Home Routers (minus their embedded > WiFi access points) could be the equivalent of ISDN modems. > > What we need is to rethink the way we transport IP packets, so that they > are not visible or corruptible by the access provider, just as they were > not visible or corruptible by the phone company during the "dialup" era. > > I don't think I am the first to think of this. But the CeroWRT folks are > a great resource for one end of this, if there were companies willing to > invest in creating the POPs. I know of some folks who might want to > capitalize the latter, if there would be a return on investment. > > Under the Open Internet Order, there was no meaningful potential of a > return on investment. Now there is. > > I think the missing piece is a "stealth" approach to carrying packets > over the access provider's link that cannot be practically disrupted by > DPI gear, even very high speed gear with good computing power in it. > That involves encryption and sort-of-steganography. Tor can't solve the > problem, and is not really needed, anyway. > > Anyway, I have some protocol ideas for transporting arbitrary IPv6 and > IPv4 packets to POPs, and some ideas for how to evolve POPs in this > novel context. > > I'm interested in thoughts by the CeroWRT developers. Not just technical > thoughts, but practical ones. And especially "services" that such POP > operators could offer that would allow them to charge a bit of > cost/profit, on top of the basic access provider services that will be > needed to reach them. > > BTW, the same applies to cellular, where I think the problem of breaking > the Internet architecture will be a lot worse. We need to make cellular > Internet access more like "dialup". > > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >