Mailing List Archive

LOL! You’re not the first person to underestimate the resilience of the Internet:


“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” – Ken Olsen, CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation (now defunct), 1977


"I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10 years," Bill Gates Comdex 1994.


27 February 1995, Newsweek magazine, quoting astronomer Clifford Stoll:

“The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works. How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.”

(17 years later, Newsweek ceased print publication and became exclusively available online).


Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in 1995:

“I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”


Clifford Stoll 1998: “We’re promised instant catalog shopping–just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?”


Of course, it’s not all cake and roses:


“Two years from now, spam will be solved.” – Bill Gates (2004)


-mel

On Aug 9, 2022, at 7:24 PM, Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com> wrote:

?Hi folks,

Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?

It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>

In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers

https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/




>
>

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>
> Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in 1995:
> “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”

In 1998 I invited Mr Metcalfe to address the IETF on the collapse of the Internet, which he renewed his prediction of. He declined.

ROTFL!

Yes, every time I’ve run into Bob at a conference he always introduces himself this way: “I’m Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet.”

-mel

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 9:20 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>
>> Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in 1995:
>> “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
>
> In 1998 I invited Mr Metcalfe to address the IETF on the collapse of the Internet, which he renewed his prediction of. He declined.

On a more positive note, the IPv6 IoT can be seen as an experiment on how we can scale the internet another order of magnitude or 2 without taking the power or the spectrum consumption to the parallel levels.

For that we turned protocols like ND and MLD from broadcast pull to unicast push in a way that respects the device sleep cycle. We also introduced routing inside the subnet at scale and got rid of the need for common broadcast domains.

With that the Wi-Sun alliance deployed millions of nodes per customer network, with thousands to tens of thousands nodes per subnet. All operating in cheap constrained nodes, unreliable radio links, and scarce bandwidth.

I hope I’ll see the day when we manage to retrofit that in the mainstream stacks; there’s a potential to turn the fringe of the internet a lot greener. Sadly the IPv4 ways (like use of L2 broadcast and mapping IP links and subnets to lower layer constructs) are entrenched in IPv6, and we are facing a lot of resistance.

Stay tuned,

Pascal

> Le 10 août 2022 à 06:29, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> a écrit :
>
> ?ROTFL!
>
> Yes, every time I’ve run into Bob at a conference he always introduces himself this way: “I’m Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet.”
>
> -mel
>
>>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 9:20 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in 1995:
>>> “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
>>
>> In 1998 I invited Mr Metcalfe to address the IETF on the collapse of the Internet, which he renewed his prediction of. He declined.
>

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 07:54, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
<nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

> On a more positive note, the IPv6 IoT can be seen as an experiment on how we can scale the internet another order of magnitude or 2 without taking the power or the spectrum consumption to the parallel levels.

I think at least the next 20 years of IoT is thread (and wifi for high
BW)+matter, and IoT devices won't have IP that is addressable even
from the user LAN, you go via GW, none of which you configure.

Some bits of if look unnecessarily forced perspective, like the
addressing scheme, instead of inlining your role in PDU we use this
cutesy addressing scheme looks like bit forced marketing of IPv6,
doesn't seem necessary but also not really an important decision
either way. Overall I think thread+matter are well designed and they
make me quite optimistic of reasonable IoT outcomes.

--
++ytti

Possibly interesting:

This kind of idea came up w/in ICANN when they were first considering
the idea of adding 1000+ new generic and internationalized TLDs. Will
it cause a melt down?

Money was allocated, studies and simulations were done, reports were
tendered.

The conclusion was: Not likely a problem in terms of stress on the DNS
etc and that seems to have been correct even if there are other, more
social, complaints.

You could dig the studies up if you're interested, they should be on
the ICANN site.

But it's a reasonable approach to the question other than discovering
some structural flaw like we'll run out of IP addresses. Not likely
but just a "for instance" where we wouldn't need simulations to study.

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Recommended reading …

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/iot-value-set-to-accelerate-through-2030-where-and-how-to-capture-it

-Jorge

nice one.
"There is no prophet in his own motherland"

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:21 AM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
> >
> > Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also
> in 1995:
> > “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in
> 1996 catastrophically collapse.”
>
> In 1998 I invited Mr Metcalfe to address the IETF on the collapse of the
> Internet, which he renewed his prediction of. He declined.

Hello Saku

I do not share that view:

1) Thread uses 6LoWPAN so nodes are effectively IPv6 even though it doesn’t show in the air.

2) Wi-Sun is not Thread and it is already deployed by millions.

3) even LoRa (1.1.1) is going IPv6, using SCHC.

Regards,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
> Sent: mercredi 10 août 2022 7:14
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet
>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 07:54, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
> <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> > On a more positive note, the IPv6 IoT can be seen as an experiment on
> how we can scale the internet another order of magnitude or 2 without
> taking the power or the spectrum consumption to the parallel levels.
>
> I think at least the next 20 years of IoT is thread (and wifi for high
> BW)+matter, and IoT devices won't have IP that is addressable even from
> the user LAN, you go via GW, none of which you configure.
>
> Some bits of if look unnecessarily forced perspective, like the
> addressing scheme, instead of inlining your role in PDU we use this
> cutesy addressing scheme looks like bit forced marketing of IPv6,
> doesn't seem necessary but also not really an important decision either
> way. Overall I think thread+matter are well designed and they make me
> quite optimistic of reasonable IoT outcomes.
>
> --
> ++ytti

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 12:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:


Hey,

> I do not share that view:

I'm not sure how you read my view. I was not attempting to communicate
anything negative of IPv6. What I attempted to communicate

- near future looks to improve IOT security posture significantly, as
the IOT LAN won't share network with your user LAN, you'll go via GW
- thread+matter gives me optimism that IOT is being taken seriously
and good progress is being made, and the standards look largely well
thought out

> 1) Thread uses 6LoWPAN so nodes are effectively IPv6 even though it doesn’t show in the air.

I believe I implied that strongly. Considering the 'forced marketing
of IPv6' on the thread addressing scheme. Mind you, I don't think it
is big deal, might even be positive, but I would have probably used
inline PDU to decide roles.

--
++ytti

It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been
constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to
assume the next problem will be unsolvable.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>
>
>

That’s just humans in general, and it certainly isn’t limited to our outlook on the future of the internet. Big advancements will always take us by surprise because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential growth. Someone please stop me here before I get on my Battery-EV soapbox. :D

Chris

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.wright=commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Tom Beecher
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet

It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to assume the next problem will be unsolvable.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com<mailto:chris@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,

Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?

It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.

new at eleven

>
> because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential
> growth
>
Don't forget how we pontificate on how well we understand infinity.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:09 PM Chris Wright <
chris.wright@commnetbroadband.com> wrote:

> That’s just humans in general, and it certainly isn’t limited to our
> outlook on the future of the internet. Big advancements will always take us
> by surprise because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending
> exponential growth. Someone please stop me here before I get on my
> Battery-EV soapbox. :D
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.wright=commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Tom Beecher
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:25 AM
> *To:* Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
> *Cc:* NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: IoT - The end of the internet
>
>
>
> It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been
> constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to
> assume the next problem will be unsolvable.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>
>

--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications
that are implemented in this software.

And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having
builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".

.... Cyberhippies....

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
>> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>>
>> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
>> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>>
>
> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>
>
> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>
>
>
>
>>
>>

Hi NANOG;

I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when I should be sleeping.

Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the conversation.

Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.

Use Case 2: A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.

Use Case 3: A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the traffic operations center.

I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and latency and traditional IP.

Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and protocols that are low latency compliant? Will we be building an infinite number of mobile edge compute boxes?

If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help kickstart some interesting research.

Best,
Christopher

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin <la@qrator.net> wrote:
>
> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications that are implemented in this software.
>
> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".
>
> .... Cyberhippies....
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com <mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com <mailto:chris@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>
> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>
> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/ <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:30 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
wrote:

> Hi NANOG;
>
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting
> when I should be sleeping.
>
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the
> conversation.
>
> Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round
> trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to
> prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.
>
> Use Case 2: A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote
> control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.
>
> Use Case 3: A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from
> the traffic operations center.
>
> I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and
> latency and traditional IP.
>
> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and
> protocols that are low latency compliant? Will we be building an infinite
> number of mobile edge compute boxes?
>
> If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help
> kickstart some interesting research.
>
> Best,
> Christopher
>

None of those use cases are real or cost justified.

1. VR will be rendered locally, not cell network dependents. The gpu in
your phone is evolving at a staggering pace. Look at Occulous or Magic Leap
(which was an amazing leader, and then died because VR is not real,
literally!)

2. Cars wont be remotely operated. That is not a thing, look at Waymo and
Tesla to see what the leaders are doing. Again, 100% local on board.

3. Same as 2




>
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin <la@qrator.net> wrote:
>
> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications
> that are implemented in this software.
>
> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that
> having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is
> OK".
>
> .... Cyberhippies....
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
>>> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>>>
>>> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
>>> other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>>>
>>
>> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>>
>>
>> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>

Christopher,

What you’re really observing here is that today's technology does not yet enable these your chosen use cases. It may someday, but not today, not for any amount of money. 1990s modem technology didn’t enable streaming video either, but add 20 years of advancement, and today you can watch Seinfeld on your wrist.

Mankind has been to the moon, but you can’t have lunch on the moon next week, no matter how much money you have. But I have no doubt that eventually humans will be eating lunch on the moon whenever they like.

The Internet has never been “re-thought” throughout it’s entire history. Networking has advanced tremendously with stepwise refinement just fine. A “re-think” would simply be too expensive and too disruptive.

-mel

On Aug 10, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com<mailto:chris@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:

Hi NANOG;

I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when I should be sleeping.

Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the conversation.

Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.

Use Case 2: A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.

Use Case 3: A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the traffic operations center.

I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and latency and traditional IP.

Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and protocols that are low latency compliant? Will we be building an infinite number of mobile edge compute boxes?

If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help kickstart some interesting research.

Best,
Christopher

On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin <la@qrator.net<mailto:la@qrator.net>> wrote:

It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications that are implemented in this software.

And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".

.... Cyberhippies....

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com<mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com<mailto:chris@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,

Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?

It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.

In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers

https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/

On 8/9/22 10:40 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
>
> Possibly interesting:
>
> This kind of idea came up w/in ICANN when they were first considering
> the idea of adding 1000+ new generic and internationalized TLDs. Will
> it cause a melt down?
>
> Money was allocated, studies and simulations were done, reports were
> tendered.
>
> The conclusion was: Not likely a problem in terms of stress on the DNS
> etc and that seems to have been correct even if there are other, more
> social, complaints.
>
> You could dig the studies up if you're interested, they should be on
> the ICANN site.
>
> But it's a reasonable approach to the question other than discovering
> some structural flaw like we'll run out of IP addresses. Not likely
> but just a "for instance" where we wouldn't need simulations to study.

I had the privilege of being part of that discussion in the early-mid
2000's as IANA GM. Having come out of Yahoo! when it was still
essentially the largest Internet company, I spent a lot of time
explaining to folks that while it is important, the root DNS zone is
still just a zone, and I had zones with tens of thousands of records in
them at Yahoo! So you tell me how big you want the root zone to be, and
I'll help scope the project for you. :)


The studies and simulations were necessary in order to smooth the
feathers of the non-technologists in the ICANN community, but we were
just demonstrating what the technologists already knew.

FWIW,

Doug

Unless you are running in a very slow and resource constrained piece of hardware, most of the latency comes from the link layer, not from the protocol stack.

If your concern is delay and disruption, check out DTN (Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking,) and Bundle Protocol, we have a WG in IETF working on it.

Initial motivation was inter planetary communications, but the technology is also being used for terrestrial applications such as IoT.

Cheers
-Jorge

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 5:30 PM, Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com> wrote:
>
> ?Hi NANOG;
>
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when I should be sleeping.
>
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the conversation.
>
> Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.
>
> Use Case 2: A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.
>
> Use Case 3: A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the traffic operations center.
>
> I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and latency and traditional IP.
>
> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and protocols that are low latency compliant? Will we be building an infinite number of mobile edge compute boxes?
>
> If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help kickstart some interesting research.
>
> Best,
> Christopher
>
>> On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin <la@qrator.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications that are implemented in this software.
>>
>> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".
>>
>> .... Cyberhippies....
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>>>>
>>>> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>>>
>>> In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
>>>
>>> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Break, probably not… Require IPv6 eventually? Probably.

Owen


> On Aug 9, 2022, at 19:22 , Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.
>
>

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 20:06 , Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>
> LOL! You’re not the first person to underestimate the resilience of the Internet:
>
> “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” – Ken Olsen, CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation (now defunct), 1977

Technically not defunct so much as absorbed into their previously smaller competitor Hewlett Packard.

> "I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10 years," Bill Gates Comdex 1994.

I was there when he said this. My reaction was “I see even less potential for Windows in that timeframe.” Tragically, I was wrong. Fortunately, so was he.

> 27 February 1995, Newsweek magazine, quoting astronomer Clifford Stoll:
> “The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works. How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.”
> (17 years later, Newsweek ceased print publication and became exclusively available online).

In fairness, at the time, the tablet and e-ink displays weren’t even on any developer’s RADAR. Until we had hand-held portable tablets with cellular internet capability (also in its infancy in 1995), replacing that wall between us and our fellow commuters (the newspaper or magazine) with digital media was unlikely.

> Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also in 1995:
> “I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.”

Yeah, but it was amusing that he actually ate his words, literally (though not very smart on his part).

> Clifford Stoll 1998: “We’re promised instant catalog shopping–just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?”

These days, that would take one heck of a mall… Especially when you consider that most wholesalers are now doing most of their order entry via the internet direct from their customers.

> Of course, it’s not all cake and roses:
>
> “Two years from now, spam will be solved.” – Bill Gates (2004)

It’s not the first time he’s been wrong even in this message. Likely it won’t be the last.

Owen

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Wolff
<chris@vergeinternet.com> wrote:
> Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.

Hi Christopher,

Not really IOT. Call it Netflix Part Two. Look for the discussions
around Netflix's impact on the Internet. I recall some folks
calculating what it would take for every household to stream their
television via the Internet and fretting over it. Needless to say,
folks are streaming their TV and the Internet hasn't collapsed.


> Use Case 2: A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE vs 20 feet with 5G.
>
> Use Case 3: A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the traffic operations center.

These sound like absolutely terrible designs. IoT does NOT imply that
all the compute is located remotely or that local comms can or should
be relayed through a central system. So your near-miss sensor sends
its packets out local radio, cryptographically authenticated with a
key the vehicle collected from central while it was still two blocks
away. No latency difference.

Think of these devices like the Mars Rovers. The Mars Rovers aren't
operated by a dude with a screen and a joystick. They receive
directions from central but follow them autonomously. If in the course
of following the directions they exceed any of dozens of safety
parameters, they stop and wait for new instructions.


> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and protocols that are low latency compliant?

No, because speed of light constraints will continue to cause us to
implement the latency-critical components close to the user. It's
basic physics man.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/