[CII] Advocatus Diaboli

[tvest at eyeconomics.com]

On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:03 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:20:55AM -0800, Barry Raveendran Greene  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 	i challenge your lema that there exists a global Internet that
>>> can
>>> 	-unilaterally- fail, taking out all communications over IP.
>>
>> Change the crisis to "major failure of the interconnection  
>> dependencies of
>> the Internet."
>>
>> It is hard to "take out the Internet." It is feasible to have the
>> interconnection dependencies massively disrupted. This disruption  
>> would
>> clear the path to continue with FX's thought experiment.
>>
>>
>
> 	ok... willing suspension of disbelief.... for now.
> 	I'll note - in passing - that if 99.98%  of the global,
> 	interconnection dependencies of the Internet on a global scale,
> 	fail - and in the remaining 0.02% of remaining connectivity,
> 	I can reach / communicate with everyone I need to - then the
> 	Internet is not broken - FOR ME.

Hi Bill,

Could you clarify your "can reach / communicate with everyone I need  
to" condition a bit?

Would it suffice to be "not broken" if you could each / communicate  
with everyone/everything you've ever needed to up to the moment of  
that 99.8% failure? Or does your assertion imply that the remaining  
0.2% would have to encompass everyone you've needed to reach /  
communicate with in the past *plus* everyone you personally will need  
to reach / communicate communicate in the future?

IMO this distinction is the point at which e2e becomes an unavoidable  
component of the CI debate.

> 	Lets face it - at any given point in time, some parts of the Internet
> 	are not functionally working/connected  to other parts of the  
> Internet.
> 	Its -always- partially broken.
>
> 	The critical (imho) components of this best-effort service are:
>
> 	:: triage - who gets cut off and why
> 	:: restoration - who gets added first and why

The term "restoration" makes sense given this particular thought  
experiment, but the corresponding definition you provide sounds like  
it might cover more than just those being "restored" -- was that  
intentional?

In case it's not obvious, such distinctions could have profound real- 
world consequences. Suppose, for example, the emergency that we face  
is not sudden or event-driven ala "outage," but rather cumulative and  
ecological in origin? What if the only prospects for restoration are  
equally slow and uncertain? Should triage and restoration rules be  
different than in cases where a quick fix is more-or-less assured?  
Would your answer to the previous question about who and what you  
personally need to reach / communicate with be different if you knew  
that your own restoration might be years in coming, or never come at  
all?

TV