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.
