IoT - The end of the internet
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.
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 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
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
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.
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/io... -Jorge
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
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 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-revisit...
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-revisit...
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-revisit... <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-revisit...
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-revisit...
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
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-revisit...
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/
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/
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-revisit... <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/>
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.
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
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
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.
participants (17)
-
Alexander Lyamin -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Ca By -
Chris Wright -
Christopher Wolff -
Doug Barton -
Etienne-Victor Depasquale -
Fred Baker -
Jorge Amodio -
Mel Beckman -
Owen DeLong -
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) -
Randy Bush -
Saku Ytti -
Tom Beecher -
Vasilenko Eduard -
William Herrin