Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Masataka Ohta]

Scott Weeks wrote:


Yes, my apologies for no reference.  Further, I have no URL to
point to as I read the book. (actual book; no e-something)

Here's something:  http://pouzinsociety.org


as I can't find open access papers or something like that there,
let me stick to wikipedia.


Like the book, in the Wikipedia article you have to get through
or skip the first part.  In the book, that's the first 5 or so
chapters.  He just describes why, in his opinion, previous things
have failed and the way he does it turns a lot of folks off.


Another major misunderstanding of him is that he is not aware that
domain name with MX is application name and there are proposals
(though unnecessarily complicated) such as SRV to cover other
applications beyond SMTP. With SRV, non-default port numbers do not
have to be specified in URLs.

So, we already have application names of domain names and mapping
mechanism between names and addresses/port_numers of DNS.

E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant


That someone can not recognize relevance between something and the
E2E principle does not mean much.

IPv6 is/was a waste of time


True, but, the reason is because IPv4 Internet with DNS, TCP
and NAT is good enough.

That TCP identifies connections only by single source and destination
addresses is certainly a problem. But, the least painful solution
is to extend TCP to be able to identify connections by multiple
addresses.

Properly designed NAT can save IP addresses a lot still keeping the
E2E transparency.


The RINA's fundamental principles are that computer
networking is just Inter-Process Communication or IPC,


That is a too much computer centric view not very
applicable to communications involving human beings,
where the E2E argument must often be applied to human
beings (true end) behind applications (tentative end
in a computer).

Masataka Ohta

Cat 5 hurricane -- How are the Bahamas doing?

[Sean Donelan]

It is too early for damage assessments.  BTC, local Bahama 
telecommunications company, is reporting widespread power outages, and 
intermittent mobile and wireline telephone service. The Abaco Islands in 
northern Bahamas seem to be taking the worst of it.


Network measurements sites are reporting less than 6% reachability in Hope 
Town, Bahamas.  Other parts of Bahamas have less than 50% reachability.

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Ross Tajvar]

Is anyone else getting flashbacks to the guy who said he solved the spam
problem?

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:05 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > My knowledge in this case is having been an HE employee for several
> > years. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but I am pretty sure I would
> > have heard of any major acquisitions by HE.
>
> If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement
> not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the
> condescending behavior.
>
>  > You offer no counter-argument nor any reason that my knowledge is
>  > inaccurate,
>
> I'm saying your opinion is untrustworthy.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Masataka Ohta]

Owen DeLong wrote:


My knowledge in this case is having been an HE employee for several
years. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but I am pretty sure I would
have heard of any major acquisitions by HE.


If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement
not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the
condescending behavior.

> You offer no counter-argument nor any reason that my knowledge is
> inaccurate,

I'm saying your opinion is untrustworthy.

Masataka Ohta

list admin contact is only a web gui???

[Scott Weeks]

We can only get to the list admins through a GUI (ewww) 
now days, or am I having drinks on the beach and not 
finding it on the web site because of that?

Please stop this guy.  Four of these for every post.

scott


--- Begin forwarded message:

From: 
To: 
Subject:
Date: 01 Sep 2019 20:06:08 EDT

Message to 7867650...@email.uscc.net failed.

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Scott Weeks]

--- mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
From: Masataka Ohta 
Scott Weeks wrote:

> I have been reading your posts on IETF and here regarding the
> above and I'm curious as to your thoughts on John Day's RINA.

As you give no reference, let's rely on wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture



Yes, my apologies for no reference.  Further, I have no URL to
point to as I read the book. (actual book; no e-something)

Here's something:  http://pouzinsociety.org

Like the book, in the Wikipedia article you have to get through 
or skip the first part.  In the book, that's the first 5 or so 
chapters.  He just describes why, in his opinion, previous things 
have failed and the way he does it turns a lot of folks off.  
Likewise, I skipped the last 1-2 chapters.  So in the Wikipedia 
article skip to the Introduction" section.


A couple more things:

---
E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant

IPv6 is/was a waste of time

The RINA's fundamental principles are that computer 
networking is just Inter-Process Communication or IPC,
and that layering should be done based on scope/scale, 
with a single recurring set of protocols, rather than 
function, with specialized protocols.
---



 more from Wikipedia 

The IPC model of RINA concretizes distributed applications in 
Distributed Application Facilities or DAFs, as illustrated in 
Figure 2. A DAF is composed of two or more Distributed Application 
or DAPs, which collaborate to perform a task. These DAPs 
communicate using a single application protocol called Common 
Distributed Application Protocol or CDAP, which enables two DAPs 
to exchange structured data in the form of objects. All of the 
DAP's externally visible information is represented by objects and 
structured in a Resource Information Base or RIB, which provides a 
naming schema and a logical organization to the objects known by 
the DAP (for example a naming tree). CDAP allows the DAPs to 
perform six remote operations on the peer's objects: create, delete, 
read, write, start and stop.

In order to exchange information, DAPs need an underlying facility 
that provides communication services to them. This facility is 
another DAF whose task is to provide and manage Inter Process 
Communication services over a certain scope, and is called a 
Distributed IPC Facility or DIF. A DIF can be thought of as a layer, 
and enables a DAP to allocate flows to one or more DAPs, by just 
providing the names of the targeted DAPs and the characteristics 
required for the flow such as bounds on data loss and delay, 
in-order delivery of data, reliability, etc. 

DIFs, being DAFs, can in turn use other underlying DIFs themselves. 
This is the recursion of the RINA.


scott














and restrict scope only for multihoming.

Then, it is true that:

 > 1972. Multi-homing not supported by the ARPANET.

which means current specifications do not support multihoming very well.

but, the statement

 > The solution was obvious: as in operating systems, a logical address
 > space naming the nodes (hosts and routers) was required on top of the
 > physical interface address space.

is wrong, because it is enough to let transport layer identify
connections based on a set of physical interface addresses of
all the interfaces, which is what draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-*
proposes.

That is, he misunderstand restrictions by the current specification
something inevitably required by layering.

 > It tosses all this on its head.

If you have some text of RINA denying the E2E argument, quote it
with URLs please.

Masataka Ohta

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 09:23 , Doug Barton  wrote:
> 
> On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any 
>>> current or former employer ...
>>> 
>>> I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little background to 
>>> frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I held a 
>>> tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life changed, and 
>>> I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and 
>>> I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of the advisors listed 
>>> at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen years. I consider them 
>>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known 
>>> for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>> 
>>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone who 
>>> genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of mechanisms 
>>> to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I cannot help 
>>> but think that some of this current sound and fury is an excuse to express 
>>> righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks involved with ARDC have 
>>> been caring for the space for a long time. From my perspective, seeing the 
>>> writing on the wall regarding the upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an 
>>> asset with monetary value increasing exponentially, they took quite 
>>> reasonable steps to create a legal framework to ensure that their ability 
>>> to continue managing the space would be protected. Some of you may remember 
>>> that other groups, like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during 
>>> and after that same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, 
>>> how it was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least 
>>> part of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have 
>>> happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?
>>> 
>> Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were 
>> happening.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>> However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
>> 1.It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these people 
>> who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
>> would take this particular action without significant prior (and much wider) 
>> consultation with the amateur radio community.
>> 2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically to 
>> avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time
>> the community became aware of this particular intended action.
> 
> I have actually been in this exact same position, of knowing that a thing is 
> the right thing to do, but also knowing that doing it would create a 
> poop-storm. I don't know if your analysis is right or not, but if I had been 
> in their shoes I probably would have done the same thing.

Well, I suppose that’s a matter of perspective and personal conviction.

For me, It’s hard to defend a belief that an action is correct if I’m afraid 
that the community I’m a steward for will offer up significant opposition to 
the point that I want to take the action in secret behind the back of the 
community.

I’m not intending any insult, or judgment on your value system, but from my 
perspective, avoiding the community discussion of a plan and acting on it 
behind their backs is an act of cowardice, not an act of conviction.

>> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing 
>> the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until
>> they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
> 
> No, I am not attempting to shame anyone (although I admit my message was a 
> bit testy). My point is simply that all of this after-the-fact griping, in 
> the absence of any proven harm, is probably not as much about the thing as it 
> is about self-culpability in what lead up to the thing. But as humans it's 
> hard to direct that anger towards ourselves, so it gets directed outwardly. 
> So, no shame, as it's a very human reaction. But a little more self-awareness 
> would not be out of place.

There is proven harm. There were active users of the address space sold that 
were (at the very least) forced to renumber.

>>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have 
>>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that 
>>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in the 
>>> bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone looked at 
>>> how much of the space is actually being used now, and what percentage 
>>> reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually represents? And 
>>> nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for free," how much is 
>>> the amateur community 

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 18:48 , Masataka Ohta  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
 However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that
 has few (if any) mergers involved:
>>> I don't think so.
>> Care to expand on this?
> 
> See below.
> 
>> No... HE has not acquired a significant number of other businesses to
>> the best of my knowledge.
> 
> People, including me, are not interested in relying on your
> knowledge.

My knowledge in this case is having been an HE employee for several
years. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but I am pretty sure I would
have heard of any major acquisitions by HE.
> 
> If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement
> not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the
> condescending behavior.

Do you have contravening knowledge or information? HE Is a private company,
so it’s nearly impossible to get detailed information about such things.

You offer no counter-argument nor any reason that my knowledge is inaccurate,
you simply claim it’s not credible because you don’t like what it says. That’s
far more condescending.

> Moreover, your logic is flawed, because, even though HE may acquire
> only one business, the acquired business may have acquired a lot of
> other businesses.

The business I know it acquired was (at the time of acquisition) a relatively
small east coast ISP startup. It did not have a significant history of 
acquisitions.

>> Repeating your condescending statement doesn't make it any more
>> accurate the second time.
> 
> That is an accurate and proper reaction to those who insists that
> Moore's law were not ending.

We can again agree to disagree. You’ve offered no proof, no actual evidence
to support this, only your own assertion. To quote your own statement:

“If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported
by any verifiable reference…”

Owen