[Cerowrt-devel] Random thought - reactions?

tapper j.lancett at ntlworld.com
Fri Dec 15 14:32:30 EST 2017

Motherboard & VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network
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 at 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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list