[CII] Advocatus Diaboli

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:37:16AM -0500, tvest at eyeconomics.com wrote:
> 
> 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?

	seems pretty clear to me... :)

> 
> 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?

	two questions there Tom...

	) I never see/know of the 99.8% failures
	) the future may require work.

> 
> 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?

	yes

> 
> 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?  

	I suspect so.

> 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?

	yes - socially there is a heirarchy.  family comes first.

> TV
> 
>  
>