This is interesting: Internet 2030 Towards a New Internet for the Year 2030 and Beyond Written by: Future Networks Team, Huawei Technologies, USA For ITU-T, SG 13 https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/13/Documents/Internet_203...
On 2 Apr 2020, at 18:51, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
This is interesting:
Internet 2030
Towards a New Internet for the Year 2030 and Beyond
Written by: Future Networks Team, Huawei Technologies, USA For ITU-T, SG 13
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/13/Documents/Internet_203...
The article from last weekend’s Financial Times -- a front page story BTW! -- is even more interesting. Sorry it’s behind this paywall: https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/718d44c5-7d67-44c2-b9d... As is the IETF Liaison statement to ITU-T on this issue: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677
Marco is involved in this ITU-related process. The Federal Government is also interested in opinions from the technical community. We are concerned about this problem. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: cooperation-wg <cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Jim Reid Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. April 2020 20:05 An: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> Cc: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [cooperation-wg] Internet 2030
On 2 Apr 2020, at 18:51, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
This is interesting:
Internet 2030
Towards a New Internet for the Year 2030 and Beyond
Written by: Future Networks Team, Huawei Technologies, USA For ITU-T, SG 13
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/13/Documents/Internet_203...
The article from last weekend’s Financial Times -- a front page story BTW! -- is even more interesting. Sorry it’s behind this paywall: https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/718d44c5-7d67-44c2-b9d... As is the IETF Liaison statement to ITU-T on this issue: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677
On 3 Apr 2020, at 14:48, <Constanze.Buerger@bmi.bund.de> <Constanze.Buerger@bmi.bund.de> wrote:
The Federal Government is also interested in opinions from the technical community. We are concerned about this problem.
Excellent! How can/should the RIPE community help?
The IETF liaison statement is quite clear and complete, much clearer than the proposals. Rather than adding to the noise RIPE should consider supporting that statement. Daniel
Daniel Karrenberg wrote on 06/04/2020 11:18:
The IETF liaison statement is quite clear and complete, much clearer than the proposals. Rather than adding to the noise RIPE should consider supporting that statement.
Would the NRO be interested in issuing a statement of support for the IETF position? Nick
Dear colleagues, Just to also note that the RIPE NCC (in our capacity as an ITU Standardization Sector Member) made a submission to TSAG (the Standardization Sector Advisory Group) discussions earlier this year. Our submission can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engag... (also linked from this page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engag...) Marco Hogewoning will shortly publish a further update on RIPE Labs (look for that in the next week or so), and given the current interest, I have a feeling it would be useful to devote some time in the RIPE 80 Cooperation WG session to discussion of this topic, at the Co-Chairs’ discretion. Best regards, Chris
On 6 Apr 2020, at 12:44, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Daniel Karrenberg wrote on 06/04/2020 11:18:
The IETF liaison statement is quite clear and complete, much clearer than the proposals. Rather than adding to the noise RIPE should consider supporting that statement.
Would the NRO be interested in issuing a statement of support for the IETF position?
Nick
Meanwhile this is from ETSI: ETSI LAUNCHES NEW GROUP ON NON-IP NETWORKING ADDRESSING 5G NEW SERVICES Sophia Antipolis, 7 April 2020 ETSI is pleased to announce the creation of a new Industry Specification Group addressing Non-IP Networking (ISG NIN). The kick-off-meeting took place on 25 March and John Grant, BSI, was elected as the ISG Chair, and Kevin Smith, Vodafone, was elected as ISG Vice Chair. With the increasing challenges placed on modern networks to support new use cases and greater connectivity, Service Providers are looking for candidate technologies that may serve their needs better than the TCP/IP-based networking used in current systems ….. https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/press-releases/1749-2020-04-etsi-launches-new-...
Dear Gordon, Thank you for raising this, I noticed it is also being discussed on other community lists, for instance in IETF. RIPE NCC is not a member of ETSI, which means that at the moment we have no more information than what is in the press release and the article on the website. From that it appears to be addressing concerns which are similar to those that are given as the rationale for New IP. At the same time it appears that this work would be more focussed and limited in scope to the mobile networks. Happy to learn if anybody in the community has more details on this proposal and the associated standardisation work. Best, Marco Hogewoning External Relations, RIPE NCC
On 8 Apr 2020, at 10:06, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
Meanwhile this is from ETSI:
ETSI LAUNCHES NEW GROUP ON NON-IP NETWORKING ADDRESSING 5G NEW SERVICES Sophia Antipolis, 7 April 2020
ETSI is pleased to announce the creation of a new Industry Specification Group addressing Non-IP Networking (ISG NIN). The kick-off-meeting took place on 25 March and John Grant, BSI, was elected as the ISG Chair, and Kevin Smith, Vodafone, was elected as ISG Vice Chair.
With the increasing challenges placed on modern networks to support new use cases and greater connectivity, Service Providers are looking for candidate technologies that may serve their needs better than the TCP/IP-based networking used in current systems
…..
https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/press-releases/1749-2020-04-etsi-launches-new-... <https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/press-releases/1749-2020-04-etsi-launches-new-group-on-non-ip-networking-addressing-5g-new-services>
On 8 Apr 2020, at 10:06, Gordon Lennox wrote:
Meanwhile this is from ETSI: …
However we read these proposals to re-invent things from the standards politics angle, the messages RIPE should send are: The Internet with TCP/IP protocols is the global utility for communication these days. Any new standards, especially those tailored to particular operational domains like mobile, must be interoperable and any new deployments must interoperate. Hallway talk: the atrocious kludges that are deployed today for running Internet over mobile are partly due to the relevant standards bodies not talking. Therefore anyone proposing to do work on standards needs to at least closely work with the IETF in the standardisation area if not work within the IETF. RIPE remains ready to provide a forum for discussing the deployment and operation of any new protocols and for developing operational guidelines. Makes sense? Naive? Daniel
Please see below. Thanks and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:33 To: Gordon Lennox Cc: Cooperation WG RIPE Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Internet 2030
On 8 Apr 2020, at 10:06, Gordon Lennox wrote:
Meanwhile this is from ETSI: …
However we read these proposals to re-invent things from the standards politics angle, the messages RIPE should send are:
The Internet with TCP/IP protocols is the global utility for communication these days. Any new standards, especially those tailored to particular operational domains like mobile, must be interoperable and any new deployments must interoperate.
I can't resist adding that, in hindsight, it would have been better if IPv6 had been backwards compatible with IPv4.
Hallway talk: the atrocious kludges that are deployed today for running Internet over mobile are partly due to the relevant standards bodies not talking.
Therefore anyone proposing to do work on standards needs to at least closely work with the IETF in the standardisation area if not work within the IETF.
As I presume we all know, standardization is a very competitive business, and forum-shopping is a fact of life. If one SDO does not deliver what participants want, they will move to a different SDO.
RIPE remains ready to provide a forum for discussing the deployment and operation of any new protocols and for developing operational guidelines.
Makes sense? Naive?
Daniel
On 9 Apr 2020, at 12:36, Richard Hill wrote:
Please see below.
Thanks and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:33 To: Gordon Lennox Cc: Cooperation WG RIPE Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Internet 2030
On 8 Apr 2020, at 10:06, Gordon Lennox wrote:
Meanwhile this is from ETSI: …
However we read these proposals to re-invent things from the standards politics angle, the messages RIPE should send are:
The Internet with TCP/IP protocols is the global utility for communication these days. Any new standards, especially those tailored to particular operational domains like mobile, must be interoperable and any new deployments must interoperate.
I can't resist adding that, in hindsight, it would have been better if IPv6 had been backwards compatible with IPv4.
Not only with hindsight. There was even a brief period when this was about to happen. If I remember correctly it was the major router vendors who flatly stated this would not be implementable. But my memory is not what it used to be ….
Hallway talk: the atrocious kludges that are deployed today for running Internet over mobile are partly due to the relevant standards bodies not talking.
Therefore anyone proposing to do work on standards needs to at least closely work with the IETF in the standardisation area if not work within the IETF.
As I presume we all know, standardization is a very competitive business, and forum-shopping is a fact of life. If one SDO does not deliver what participants want, they will move to a different SDO.
Absolutely true. Therefore our task as operators should be to argue at least for cooperation and to offer operational advice. Stay safe and healthy Daniel
On 9 Apr 2020, at 11:33, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Makes sense? Yes
Naive? No, unless supporting material were, and were to remain, unavailable.
I think it important to reduce the essence of the message to a very few, starkly simple, sentences, and then to assert this essence as often as necessary, with reference to the supporting material when this is appropriate. /Niall
On 9 Apr 2020, at 11:54, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
I think it important to reduce the essence of the message to a very few, starkly simple, sentences, and then to assert this essence as often as necessary, with reference to the supporting material when this is appropriate.
Indeed. That must be the key point of RIPE's response. However, I expect some administrations would appreciate wider industry statements of support. If the Internet sector in their respective companies remain silent on this topic, administrations may well be uneasy or unwilling to take a strong position on New IP (or Internet 2030 or Manynets or whatever it’s called) once it gets on the agenda for strategic meetings like WTSA. I hope this WG or the broader RIPE community will be able to encourage these companies to both speak up and engage with the relevant officials.
On 9 Apr 2020, at 16:10, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
If the Internet sector in their respective companies remain silen
Whoops! That should of course be "their respective countries”...
participants (10)
-
Chris Buckridge -
Constanze.Buerger＠bmi.bund.de -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Gordon Lennox -
Jim Reid -
Marco Hogewoning -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
rhill＠hill-a.ch -
Richard Hill