DNS pulling BGP routes?

Mon Oct 18 12:58:02 UTC 2021

On 10/18/21 14:16, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> As copper and optical fiber for access politically belongs to ITU,
> DSL and optical fiber standards of ITU are followed by the IETF
> world.

Yes, but nobody cares about Layer 1 or Layer 2.

Once the road is built, all anyone remembers is the car I drove across 
it, not whether the tar used to build the road was mixed well :-).

>
> I actually joined an ITU meeting at Geneva, when I was actively
> acting for DSL in Japan.

Good for you.

Look, I'm not saying the ITU are bad - I am saying that they are "more 
structured and rigid", than Internet-land. And that is okay. There is a 
reason we TCP/IP became dominant.

> FYI, IS-IS is part of OSI, which was jointly developed by ISO and ITU,
> not by IETF at all.

You might be forgetting that the IETF adapted IS-IS to IP networks:

     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1195

I'm not sure anyone running IS-IS in an ISP environment, today, is 
running it for CLNS.

But we thank the ISO, immensely :-).

> Are you agreeing with me that they are earning a lot more than
> they should?

I have zero interest in being the profit police. Who am I tell anyone 
that they are earning too much?

If you make something people find value in, the billions will 
automatically flow your way - you can't stop it. Is it a perfect system, 
probably not, but it's what we've got.

> Access networks are subject to regional monopoly unless unbundling
> is forced by regulatory bodies. Worse, with PON, such unbundling is
> hard (not impossible, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5616389).

Submarine cables are usually either owned by one party, or a small club. 
It's no different - and trying to be a member of the club can be just as 
demoralizing as local regulation on terrestrial builds.

That said, different markets have different policies on access networks. 
So a single policy for what we think is best is not practical. Moreover, 
if access networks are expensive due to backward regulation and 
monopolistic promotion, then that is an artificial problem that can be 
removed, but the actors choose not to. You can't blame a content 
operator for that market position.

>
> So, you are a neo-liberalist. Good luck.

I also like the one where whole gubbermints shutdown the Internet for 
elections, or to hush voices.  I discriminate equally :-).

>
> Though precise definition of "tier 1" is a rat hole, that
> there are entities called tier 1, which are the primary
> elements of the Internet backbone, is a common concept
> shared by most of us, maybe excluding you.

I know many here that have moved on from the "tier" terminologies. But 
it's unnecessary for them to chime in.

There hasn't been "a core of the Internet" for a long while, and anyone 
still believing that either in reality or words is living in a fantasy 
world long gone, which is partially why infrastructure finds itself 
becoming less and less relevant, and being swallowed up by BigContent.

I mean, if you missed the fact that Facebook went down, and people 
thought the Internet had stopped, then maybe Facebook are a Tier 1...

Mark.