John Leslie wrote:
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
Since no current ISP "provides the capability to transmit data
to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints,"
it's hard to see what the folks who wrote this think they're going
to regulate.
Wait a minute... isn't the Internet "capital I" defined precisely by the
collection of IP addresses that are reachable from each other?
I'm not aware of any definition which says that...
It's kind of implicit. It's a mutually interconnected address space.
Just like any telephone connected to the PSTN.
In any case, that's the way I remember discussions always ending when
the topic of "an internet" (small i.) vs. "the Internet" (capital I)
came up.
If you can't exchange IP packets with an endpoint, is it really on the
Internet?
The "Internet" is, by all definitions, one particular "network of
networks" which uses the IP protocol.
Thus, IMHO, an endpoint is "on the Internet" if it connects to one
of the networks in that particular "network of networks".
I think we're saying the same thing here.
(Yes, NAT confuses things a bit - but arguably it's the public address
of a NAT device that's the "Internet endpoint").
That is a reasonable interpretation. But, I must disagree that there
is any generally-accepted definition of the term "Internet endpoint".
I've certainly seen the term used interchangeably with IP address in
multiple contexts - mostly around DDoS attack on a particular "internet
endpoint" or another, and I seem to recall a draft MIB for "internet
endpoints" that essentially treated the term interchangeably with IP
addresses, or a physical port with an IP address. If NOT an IP address,
is there really any other viable interpretation? (And yes, it would be
nice if the FCC order defined its terms - though at one point the order
says this "?Fixed? broadband Internet access service refers to a
broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily at
fixed endpoints using stationary equipment, such as the modem that
connects an end user?s home router, computer, or other Internet access
device to the network).
And yes, firewalls also complicate matters - but, the "Internet
wallplug" in my office has the "capability" to exchange packets with
all other IP addresses on the net
Fascinating... I've never heard of an "Internet wallplug" before...
An old term, in vogue for a short period - back when folks talked about
"network utilities" and "computing utilities" - as in the hole in the
wall that you plug your computer into. Otherwise known as an ethernet
jack. :-)
- but that doesn't require that they be willing (or able) to respond.
I can understand your exception re: "willing"; but it seems strange
to claim that an "Internet endpoint" which is "unable" to respond fits
the new FCC definition.
Unable as in - an addressable port with nothing attached to it, or a
crashed machine, etc. Not all addresses are active (though we may be
getting pretty close for IPv4).
Please understand what ISPs actually do:
1. We receive packets and _try_ to route them to another node which we
have reason to be "closer" to the destination address;
2. We advertise our "closeness" to particular ranges of IP addresses.
That's it, folks. Whatever else we do in support of these cannot
change the fact that we cannot deliver packets "to" most IP addresses;
and we cannot even know whether a packet we may deliver to a customer
is actually "from" a particular IP address (least of all whether it
is in response to a packet our customer asked us to forward).
It's all "best effort" -- which means we make no representation
whether any packet will reach the nominal destination.
One expects a bit more than that. One expects an ISP to actually have
connectivity, peering agreements, and routing tables set up that let a
customer exchange packets with addresses across the Internet as a
whole. At least, I've never come across an ISP that advertises
connectivity only to a limited set of ASNs, or a limited set of IP
addresses (well, there are enterprise networks and VPNs, but those are
not generally viewed as ISPs). And things are generally considered
broken when a polluted routing table leads some part of the net to
become unreachable. And it's generally considered a "bad thing" that
governments, like the Chinese, put up big firewalls that block traffic
to large chunks of the net.
The same argument applies to phone service. I may get my local phone
service from Verizon, but I expect to be able to place a call to any
phone, anywhere in the world, that's connected to the PSTN. Verizon is
providing the "capability" to dial and reach all those numbers, but it's
not providing the end-to-end connectivity. If they started saying "you
can't call numbers in Cincinatti, or Italy" I think we'd all agree that
something was wrong.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra