Mailing List Archive

1 2  View All
Re: IoT - The end of the internet [ In reply to ]
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:29 , 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.

That’s only true if you’re trying to send stereo full frame video to the goggles from a remote location. If you have intelligence on the user device and can render a lot of the stuff locally, that bandwidth requirement drops dramatically.

> 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.

An autonomous vehicle shouldn’t be taking cellular data into account for stopping distances… Onboard sensors should be able to stop the vehicle when time is critical.

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

I’m not sure I understand the meaning of this statement. Is the traffic operations center controlling the vehicles approaching the intersection? Why would the vehicles not be able to sort this out autonomously?

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

I hypothesize that if you are doing life support or life critical operations over traditional IP, you are doing something very very wrong and people will suffer dire consequences as a result.

> 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?

It sounds like your idea of how tomorrow’s applications will operate will require some re-thinking. I know my Tesla, for example, when in full self-driving (beta) mode does not phone home
before it decides to hit the brakes, swerve, or take other emergency actions for example.

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

I think that the issue will usually be obviated by moving the time-critical decisions closer to the edge (or never centralizing them to begin with).

Owen

>
> 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/ <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: IoT - The end of the internet [ In reply to ]
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:51 , Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

The abysmal slow rate of IPv6 adoption proves this better than any amount of pontification could.

Despite all of the obvious benefits of bigger addressing, people continue to cling to their IPv4.

The saddest part of the situation is that the costs they impose are easily externalized onto those that are not lagging behind.

Owen
Re: IoT - The end of the internet [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:38 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Wolff
> <chris@vergeinternet.com> wrote:
> > 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.

Also, because error IS the character of an operational network. All
successful network protocols deal reasonably with unpredictable error.
Error correction begets jitter which is a form of latency. It's a
basic tenet of any network-using device no matter what protocol you
design. Hence no such thing as a "low latency compliant" network or
protocol. You can make a stochastic statement about the probability
that information arrives within a timeframe but you absolutely cannot
guarantee it.

What CAN exist is protocols which don't do "head of line blocking"
during error correction. That's where data successfully received isn't
delivered until after the corrected data preceding it arrives. But we
already have those. Most things UDP went UDP instead of TCP to avoid
TCP's head of line blocking.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
RE: IoT - The end of the internet [ In reply to ]
Exponential growth under the limited resource
Always finish by collapse.
Some resources are always limited in nature.
Smith’s joke from the “Matrix” (about modeling humans as a virus) is only partially a joke.
Whenever somebody talks about “exponent” – be alarmed – it would end in a very bad way.

The biggest one in the history of mankind was around 1200 b.c. Tin for Bronze has been finished, Bronze was the basement of the civilization.
It is the famous “Bronze Age collapse” that cut the population 100x, and civilization lost writing capability for a few hundreds of years.
Recovered by mastering Iron instead of Bronze. Iron is many thousands of times more available on Earth (in every swamp).

Tens of smaller collapses are traceable in human history.
Well, Roma's empire collapse was probably not so small, but smaller than the “Bronze Age collapse”.
The oldest is probably from humans in Australia, they have eaten all big animals and destroyed all forests, then depopulate and lose the basic tools (like arrows).
A very similar story that did happen for Easter Island, just on the island all become dead.

We are at the inflection point of the current exponent.
Natural resource energy production already declining for a couple of years (small decline yet) – carbon-hydrogen-based natural resources are limited.
If a replacement for the current energy source would not be found
Then the anticipated civilization collapse would become the biggest in history: 1000x depopulations.
Nile river is capable to feed 1M of people using only muscles, not 120M. And so on everywhere in the world.
The transition period in collapse would bypass possible optimal under the new conditions (cut more people).

“Dark ages” are possible and happened in history many times. Don’t be too optimistic.
People could start eating each other instead of “Lunch on the Moon”. It is possible.
Fortunately, not mandatory.

PS: Canned energy from China (solar panels, wind turbines) is produced from coal. It is not a solution when coal would finish.
Moreover, energy return from such types of “green energy” is worse than direct electricity generation from coal.
It is popular just because dust is left in China. Others have “green”.
A closed nuclear fuel cycle is the only available solution (gives the next exponent that could last 5k years if Thorium is involved).
The ordinary nuclear reaction could prolong humans' agony only for 60 years (Uranium 235 is limited).
Nuclear fusion looks like fiction yet: the best story for money wastage, already 3 generations of scientists have made their careers.

Ed/
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:19 PM
To: Chris Wright <chris.wright@commnetbroadband.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet

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<mailto: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<mailto:commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Tom Beecher
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Christopher Wolff <chris@vergeinternet.com<mailto:chris@vergeinternet.com>>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto: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.


--
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

1 2  View All