2002: Towards the IP Utility - IPIPU (fall VON 2002 conference)

Suggesting the creation of IPIPU: The Institute for the Promotion of the Internet Protocol Utility

Transcript

1. 1 Towards the IP Utility The Institute for the Promotion of the Internet Protocol Utility www.ipipu.org Tom Lyon
2. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 2 From Internet to InterNOT  No Inter:  Peering sucks  Backbones going bankrupt  No Net:  No Internet access networks being built  Users prevented from connecting networks  Carriers seeking control of users, services, terminals…
3. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 3 Internet Transport  The IP protocol represents the transport portion of the Internet  The Internet Protocol Utility is concerned only about IP  IP, or something very like it, is required for the universal connectivity we expect in the Internet  The IPU will work whatever the underlying technology – fiber, wireless, cable, etc.
4. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 4 The Internet Protocol UtilityTM  Networks don’t succeed without public support and/or regulation  History  Economics  Technology
5. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 5 Public Networks  Cost of the network is very high  Marginal cost of the traffic is very low  The product is a simple commodity  Coverage/Universality benefits all  Unforeseen benefits for new industries  Public Networks == Utility  Usually highly regulated  Built either by public support or monopoly patent position
6. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 6 Classic Networks  Transportation  Roads, Rails, Airlines, …  Utilities  Water, Gas, Electric, …  Communications  Postal System, Telegrams, Telephone, Internet, …
7. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 7 Utilities  Utility networks are funded by their users; often with subsidies to “share the pain”  Competition (for users) is very rare  Interconnection eases costs and increases capacity  Users can become providers – water, electricity, mail rooms, …
8. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 8 The Old Telco Network  Bell System  National P.T.T.s  Highly regulated:  “Universal” (voice) Service  Common Carriage  No bundled services  “One Bell System – It Worked”
9. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 9 Metcalfe’s Law  The value of a network grows as the square of the number of users  M N = cU N 2  Only works for many-to-many, not one-to-many, networks
10. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 10 Peering vs. Balkanization  ‘The Internet’ consists of multiple networks from competitive providers  There’s no direct economic incentive for good peering; peering diminishes differentiation  M(Σ N ) >> Σ M N
11. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 11 The Carrier Problem  Fixed voice network has matured  Mobile voice network is maturing  How to grow revenue as # users slows?  Lots of demand for data, but no good revenue models.
12. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 12 The ‘Rational’ Approach  Fight like hell for market share  Lock-in customers to reduce churn  Drive ARPUs with lots of stupid little services  Reduce costs  Avoid peering  What happened to building the network?
13. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 13 The New Telco Network  Competitive in long-haul  Unbundling of local loop – failed  De-regulation = regulatory mess  Market share battles; little growth in voice  Competition seeks economic efficiency, but requires instability.
14. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 14 IP History  1972: Kahn proposes ‘Internetting’  1977: 16 network numbers  1978: Cerf proposes ‘Catenet’ model  1981: IPv4: RFC 791, 43 networks assigned  1983: ARPANET transition to IP & TCP  1995: Windows 95 released with TCP/IP  Today: 200M hosts, 700M users
15. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 15 The Catenet Model  Concatenated networks: The right way to build a network is to assume everything you connect to is also a network  Your part of the network has a boundary, but the network doesn’t  Do utility networks care about “terminals”?
16. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 16 IP as Network  High bandwidth?  Low latency?  Loss, re-ordering?  Secure?  QoS?  Extremely variable  Extremely variable  No guarantees  No!  For What?
17. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 17 The Zen of IP  IP assumes very little of underlying networks  IP doesn’t get in the way of new applications  Telnet -> Email -> Web -> Napster -> ???  Applications assume very little from IP  IP succeeds because it is simple.
18. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 18 The Institute for the Promotion of The Internet Protocol UtilityTM  A non-profit association to promote the concept of the Internet Protocol UtilityTM  Technology  Marketing & Economics  Legal context
19. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 19 Defining a Utility  Focus on first mile/last mile economics  Simple, scaleable service definition  Simple, ubiquitous interface definition  Simple & fair billing model for both customers and peers  User oversight & ownership as prelude to governmental regulation
20. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 20 The Internet Protocol UtilityTM  Service: Global Transport of IPv6 packets  It’s too late for IPv4  IPv6 is simpler and scales  IPv6 over IPv4 for global backbone  IPv4 over IPv6 for local access to ‘legacy’ ISPs  Interface: Ethernet  IEEE 802.3* & 802.11*  Billing Model: Sender Pays  Bill for other layers (http, etc.) in other ways
21. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 21 The IP-OKSM Service Mark  IP-OKSM will certify that the Internet Protocol Utility is available  Users need a way to identify, discuss, request and require this service  Branding will be important and abuse will be prosecuted  $1/user/year(?) for IP-OKSM brand to fund IPIPU activities  Exclusive regional licenses to encourage growth & stability
22. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 22 Legal Context  Utilities need legal constraint…  Avoidance of monopoly abuse  Mandated interconnects  Price vs. cost models  Utilities need legal protection…  Not responsible for content of packets  Verizon vs. RIAA, University crack-downs  Tax incentives, loan guarantees, etc.
23. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 23 Community Activities  Fiber to the Home  Zipp – Grant County, WA  PA Fibernet - Palo Alto, CA  Public Wireless LAN  Digital Canopy – Tallahassee, FL  Pittsburgh Wireless  Hybrid Fiber/Coax  Ashland, OR; Alameda, CA; Coldwater, MI
24. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 24 Community Activities  non-profit or public fiber WAN backbones  Noanet – Northwest States  Rural Fiber – Counties and Cities of Oregon  Community “metro” backbones  CityLink – Wellington & Auckland, NZ  Universities as communities
25. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 25 Summary  Networks and competition don’t mix  One IP network is what the Internet needs  Communities have the need and the power to serve themselves  IPIPU will help the communities to interconnect and aggregate
26. Oct. 9, 2002 VON 2002 26 I’m IP-OKSM … Are you IP-OKSM ?  Enough about Virtual, Private, Networks… I want a Real, Public, Network!