Hi Phillip,
At 09:46 21-11-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I disagree.
Everyone has the right to:
1) Connect hosts to the Internet.
2) Make use of any existing Internet application protocol.
3) Develop new application protocols.
I commented about the protocol parameter registry instead of the
above. I don't disagree with what people can do.
Governments do have the duty to police the Internet to prevent
behavior that is legitimately criminal. But that does not include
political or 'moral' censorship.
I am subject to the laws where I am residing. If the government were
to decide to implement political or "moral" censorship I doubt that
IETF participants would bother about that.
Companies that provide access have the right to recoup costs but not
to collect monopoly rents.
Ok.
The IETF protocol registries do not recognize this distinction at
present and many application layer registries are subject to more
control than is necessary. The Internet will break if multiple
parties attempt to deploy incompatible protocols identifying
themselves as 'ipv7'.
IPv7 was discussed within the IETF in 1992.
There is an IETF interest in controlling the parts of the IANA
registry that allocate numbers for the low level Internet
infrastructure. But it should be easier to add application protocols
and these should not require IETF permission or even registration
unless a 'friendly name' for the protocol is desired and thus a
registration mechanism is necessary to prevent accidental collision.
Registration is better if the person considers it worthwhile to
prevent accidental collisions. I don't require anyone to do it. I
am aware that there is a well-known case where the collision is by
design because of some IETF history ...
This is an area where the IETF reserved port number scheme collapsed
long ago. The government and civil society interests should ask IETF
to provide an application discovery mechanism that does not rely on
IANA/IETF control.
I'll wait to read the details of the request to form an opinion.
This is where governments can impact change.
Yes.
The problem with IPv6 deployment is that there are transition costs.
Until very recently the IETF plan for deployment was to try to make
IPv6 more attractive than IPv4 by deliberately hobbling IPv4
features and resist palliative measures such as NAT. This was a
complete feature.
I'll avoid commenting about NAT.
What I would do as a government entity is to get a group of techies
to describe a minimum set of technical capabilities for Internet
access points. The market can decide colour, shape, size, whether
the device supports WiFi or not. But the box should be capable of:
1) Sitting on an IPv4 or an IPv6 network connection plus a defined
IPv4 gateway scheme and provide full Internet service to either IPv4
or IPv6 addresses.
2) Rate limiting SYN requests so as to prevent the DDoS attacks from
the network being passed onto the Internet. (No home network needs
to create more than a million TCP/IP channels an hour.)
3) Blocking outbound packets with forced source addresses.
4) Support Port Control Protocol.
5) Passing all necessary DNS records to perform DNSSEC (provided the
root of trust issues are solved).
Ok.
We could achieve the necessary pre-conditions for transition if just
one large government told ISPs that they planned to require
connection boxes to support such features. Once the manufacturers of
the boxes had a clear direction, they would have no reason not to
provide the same feature set in other jurisdictions.
That might work if someone went out there to do the work.
Regards,
-sm