< draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-00.txt   draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-01.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Arkko Network Working Group J. Arkko
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational B. Trammell Intended status: Informational B. Trammell
Expires: April 26, 2019 ETH Zurich Expires: September 13, 2019 ETH Zurich
M. Nottingham M. Nottingham
Fastly
C. Huitema C. Huitema
Private Octopus Inc. Private Octopus Inc.
M. Thomson M. Thomson
Mozilla Mozilla
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Nuage Networks Nuage Networks
October 23, 2018 N. ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
March 12, 2019
Considerations on Internet Consolidation and the Internet Architecture Considerations on Internet Consolidation and the Internet Architecture
draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-00 draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-01
Abstract Abstract
Many of us have held a vision of the Internet as the ultimate Many of us have held a vision of the Internet as the ultimate
distributed platform that allows communication, the provision of distributed platform that allows communication, the provision of
services, and competition from any corner of the world. But as the services, and competition from any corner of the world. But as the
Internet has matured, it seems to also feed the creation of large, Internet has matured, it seems to also feed the creation of large,
centralised entities in many areas. This phenomenon could be looked centralised entities in many areas. This phenomenon could be looked
at from many different angles, but this memo considers the topic from at from many different angles, but this memo considers the topic from
the perspective of how available technology and Internet architecture the perspective of how available technology and Internet architecture
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Data- and Capital-intensive Services . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Permissionless Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Fundamentals of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Technology Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Many of us have held a vision of the Internet as the ultimate Many of us have held a vision of the Internet as the ultimate
distributed platform that allows communication, the provision of distributed platform that allows communication, the provision of
services, and competition from any corner of the world. But as the services, and competition from any corner of the world. But as the
Internet has matured, it seems to also feed the creation of large, Internet has matured, it seems to also feed the creation of large,
centralised entities in many areas. centralised entities in many areas.
Is Internet traffic consolidating, i.e., moving towards a larger We use the term Internet consolidation to refer to the process of the
fraction of traffic involving a small set of large content providers increasing control over Internet infrastructure and services by a
or social networks? It certainly appears so, though more small set of organizations. Such concentration has an obvious effect
quantitative research on this topic would be welcome. on traffic flows or whose services and systems are in daily use by
large population of Internet users, but it can also create secondary
effects, where the abiity to collect information or to affect
something is concentrated in the small set of organizations.
Consolidation may also affect technology choices and the evolution of
the Internet architecture, e.g., large organizations or organizations
providing important technology components may have a significant
impact on what technology is deployed for large numbers of users or
by other organizations.
Our first question is whether Internet is indeed consolidating? It
certainly appears so, though more quantitative research on this topic
would be welcome. It is also possible that there's only a perception
of consolidation, as market forces have caused business changes in
new areas of business. Arguably, today's consolidation areas seem to
be more in the application space than further down in the stack or in
the operating systems, as was the case some years ago. The second
question is if we're seeing consolidation simply moving to new areas.
This phenomenon could be looked at from many different angles, but This phenomenon could be looked at from many different angles, but
this memo considers the topic from the perspective of how available this memo considers the topic from the perspective of how available
technology and Internet architecture drives different market technology and Internet architecture drives different market
directions. How are technology choices and fundamentals of directions. Our third question is if the Internet technology has
communication affecting some of these trends? influenced the consolidation trends in some manner? And conversely,
Our engineering remit is to focus on technology, but of course we the fourth question asks how is Internet consolidation influencing
also want to understand the implications and externalities of the the development of the Internet infrastructure and architecture?
technical arrangements we design. Technology affects economics and
vice versa. The Internet technology community continues to make
decisions that have ramifications on Internet systems, just as we are
subject to forces that affect them.
As technologists, one question we have is whether there are changes The engineering remit at the IETF is to focus on technology, but of
in technology that would help reduce technically-driven large-player course we also want to understand the implications and externalities
advantages. of the technical arrangements we design. Technology affects
economics and vice versa. The Internet technology community
continues to make decisions that have ramifications on Internet
systems, just as we are subject to forces that affect them.
As technologists, our fourth question is whether there are changes in
technology that would help reduce those large-player advantages that
are technically-driven.
This memo reviews areas where consolidation may be occurring in the This memo reviews areas where consolidation may be occurring in the
Internet, and discusses the potential reasons for this. Section 2 Internet, and discusses the potential reasons for this. The memo
starts by review other work in this area in Section 2. Section 3
discusses consolidation and the reasons behind the creation of larger discusses consolidation and the reasons behind the creation of larger
entities, and Section 3 looks at some actions that might alleviate entities, and Section 4 looks at some actions that might alleviate
the situation. the situation.
Note: If you are interested on this or other architecture-related If you are interested on this or other architecture-related topics,
topics, please subscribe to the IAB architecture-discuss mailing list please subscribe to the IAB architecture-discuss mailing list as one
as one forum for discussion. forum for discussion. Similarly, the Internet Society has chosen
consolidation as a focus topic for their year 2019 activities. Their
report is in [ISOC].
2. Consolidation 2. Other Work
One of the causes for the current consolidation of the Internet
infrastructure can be traced back to some of the assumptions that
were made during the commercialization of the Internet in the early
1990s [Abbate], even though [RFC1192] already describes some
potential issues that could arise. Overall it was expected the
combination of commercialization, together with the technical and
architectural characteristics of the Internet, such as its modularity
and layering principles, would lead to perfect markets, free
competition and decentralized structures [LitanRivlin].
But as we know now, this did not happen entirely as expected. Some
even argue that 'market concentrations, control and power struggles
are categories to adequately describe the fundamental dynamics of the
commercial Internet' [DolataSchrape]. While the privatization was
supposed to lead to competition and innovation [Cowheyetal]
[VanSchewick], some argue that it actually led to the emergence of
Internet oligopolies [Mansell] [Smyrnaios].
Current scientific economic thinking harbors two different schools
vis a vis efficient markets and monopolies. The school based on Adam
Smith argues that unfettered markets tend to concentration of wealth
and income, whereas liberal economist believe in efficient markets
that stimulate competition.
On the other hand, according to Joseph Stiglitz 'many sectors -
telecoms, cable TV, digital branches from social media to Internet
search, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, agro-business, and many
more - cannot be understood through the lens of competition'
[Stiglitz]. The considerations of technologists and policy makers at
the time of the commercialization and privatization of the Internet
infrastructure might have been based on a belief in efficient
markets, whereas we are now finding out this might not always be how
markets function.
It cannot be denied that 'market actors have contributed immensely to
the evolution of the Internet in terms of investment, products,
services, and infrastructure, and the government's light-handed
approach to regulation has given producers and consumers substantial
freedom to innovate and to self-regulate with respect to many issues
affecting the Internet community in ways that have produced
substantial social benefits' [Frischmann]. But the current
consolidation in ownership of and control over the Internet
infrastructure was not foreseen [Clark], and arguably the loss of
decentralized control goes against its design objectives. For
instance, [RFC1958] says:
This allows for uniform and relatively seamless operations in a
competitive, multi-vendor, multi-provider public network.
and
Heterogeneity is inevitable and must be supported by design.
And [RFC3935] says:
We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-
user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts
resonate with the core values of the IETF community.
3. Factors Driving Consolidation
Consolidation is driven by economic factors relating to scale and Consolidation is driven by economic factors relating to scale and
ability to reach a large market over the Internet. In general, an ability to easily reach a large market of users over the Internet.
efficient market such as the Internet tends to enable winners to take This kind of setting tends to enable winners to take large market
large market shares. shares, whether those winners came about through the model that
liberal economists believe in or the model that Adam Smith believes
in.
The most visible aspects of this involve well-recognised Internet The most visible aspects of this involve well-recognized Internet
services, but it is important to recognise that the Internet is a services. Internet Society's report summarised the market position
complex ecosystem. There are many underlying services whose of popular Internet service brands as follows [ISOC]:
diversity, or lack thereof, are as important as that of, say,
consumer-visible social networks. For instance, the diversity of o Facebook and Google have been estimated to account for 84% of
cloud services, operating systems, browser engines is as important as global digital advertising investment (excluding China).
that as of application stores or the browsers themselves.
o Amazon is expected to account for 49.1% of all online retail
spending in the US. Similarly, Alibaba is estimated to have close
to 60% of the e-commerce market in China.
o Google alone holds 90% of the global search market, over 60% of
web browsers, and has the number 1 (by far) mobile operating
system (Android).
o Facebook - incorporating Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and
Instagram - holds 4 of the world's top 6 social media platforms.
But it is important to recognize that the Internet is a complex
ecosystem. There are many underlying services whose diversity, or
lack thereof, are as important as that of, say, consumer-visible
social networks. For instance, the diversity of cloud services,
operating systems, browser engines is as important as that as of
application stores or the browsers themselves.
Of course, the Internet allows plenty of choice both in these and Of course, the Internet allows plenty of choice both in these and
other areas. Too many or too few choices create different kinds of other areas. Too many or too few choices create different kinds of
problems. problems.
It would be useful to break these general factors and observations It would be useful to break these general factors and observations
down a bit further. In particular, it is useful to distinguish down a bit further. In particular, it is useful to distinguish
market or economic factors from technical factors. market or economic factors from technical factors.
2.1. Economics 3.1. Economics
Scaling benefits are natural for many types of businesses. And many Scaling benefits are natural for many types of businesses. And many
Internet-based businesses can potentially serve a very large customer Internet-based businesses can potentially serve a very large customer
base, as the cost of replicating and delivering their service to new base, as the cost of replicating and delivering their service to new
customers or areas is small. customers or areas is small.
However, typically the network effect has an even more pronounced However, typically the network effect has an even more pronounced
impact. Each additional user adds to the value of the network for impact. Each additional user adds to the value of the network for
all users in a network. In some applications, such as the open web, all users in a network. In some applications, such as the open web,
this value grows for everyone, as the web is a globally connected, this value grows for everyone, as the web is a globally connected,
interoperable service for anyone with a browser can use. interoperable service for anyone with a browser can use.
There is an important distinction between different applications of There is an important distinction between different applications of
the network effect, however. Consider email as another example; the network effect, however. Consider email as another example;
anyone with an account at any email server can use it globally. anyone with an account at any email server can use it globally.
However, here we have seen much more consolidation into few large However, here we have seen much more consolidation into few large
email providers, both due to innovative, high-quality services but email providers, both due to innovative, high-quality services but
also because running email services by small entities is becoming also because running email services by small entities is becoming
difficult; among other things due to spam prevention practices that difficult; among other things due to spam prevention practices that
tend to recognise well only the largest entities. tend to recognize well only the largest entities.
In some other applications, such as social media, the services have a In some other applications, such as social media, the services have a
more closed nature. The value of being a customer of one social more closed nature. The value of being a customer of one social
media service depends highly on how many other customers that media service depends highly on how many other customers that
particular service has. Hence, the larger the service, the more particular service has. Hence, the larger the service, the more
valuable it is. And the bigger the value difference to the valuable it is. And the bigger the value difference to the
customers, the less practical choice they have in selecting a customers, the less practical choice they have in selecting a
service. service.
In some cases, these developments also allow asymmetric relationships In some cases, these developments also allow asymmetric relationships
to form, with the customers having less ability to affect the service to form, with the customers having less ability to affect the service
than they would perhaps wish. than they would perhaps wish.
2.2. Data- and Capital-intensive Services 3.2. Interdependencies
Entities with a large role in a market place tend to have inertia, of
course through having many customers, but also due to their
interconnectedness with the rest of the ecosystem. These
interconnections can range from business relationships to peering
connections, linking, and the use of various infrastructure services
from an entity as building blocks in applications.
These interconnections make it difficult for a market to move away
from a large entity. Indeed, even for an individual it can be a
challenge to not use the most commonly used Internet services
[Gizmodo].
Optimistic technologists ("digital libertarians") tend to have a
beliefs that states have limited ability to regulate the Internet:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"
[Gilmore]. However, as argued by [Boyle] states may have multiple
ways to influence and monitor the Internet. One of the issues
related to consolidation is that it tends to be easier to exert
control of few large entities, than a large set of small, distributed
players. This concern is particularly acute around intellectual
property rights or surveillance capabilities, particularly when
extra-territorial requirements are placed on the large entities.
These entities cannot avoid comforming to regulation and laws in any
of the locations they have presence in.
As a result, there's an added angle of interconnectedness with
governments. At the same time, this of course also provides an
avenue for control of market forces, e.g., in the form of competition
law.
3.3. Data- and Capital-intensive Services
The scaling advantages are only getting larger with the advent of AI- The scaling advantages are only getting larger with the advent of AI-
and machine learning -based technologies. and machine learning -based technologies.
The more users a service has, the more data is available for training The more users a service has, the more data is available for training
machine learning models, and the better the service becomes, bringing machine learning models, and the better the service becomes, bringing
again more users. This feedback loop and the general capital- again more users. This feedback loop and the general capital-
intensive nature of the technology (data and processing at scale) intensive nature of the technology (data and processing at scale)
makes it likely that the largest companies are ahead in the use of makes it likely that the largest companies are ahead in the use of
these technologies. these technologies.
2.3. Permissionless Innovation One could also take the pessimistic view that many of the ongoing
disputes in standards organizations relate to which market actors
will ultimately be able to collect the more data from private persons
and how. The question isn't as much about the protection of the
user's privacy but rather whether one or another industry (or
country) will be able to benefit from access to data.
3.4. Permissionless Innovation
The email vs. social media example also highlights the interesting The email vs. social media example also highlights the interesting
roles of interoperability and the "permissionless innovation" roles of interoperability and the "permissionless innovation"
principle -- the idea that a network can be simple but still powerful principle - the idea that a network can be simple but still powerful
enough that essentially any application could be built on top of it enough that essentially any application could be built on top of it
without needing any special support from anyone else. Permissionless without needing any special support from anyone else. Permissionless
innovation has brought us all the innovative applications that we innovation has brought us all the innovative applications that we
enjoy today, on top of a highly interoperable underlying network, enjoy today, on top of a highly interoperable underlying network,
along with advances in video coding and other techniques used by along with advances in video coding and other techniques used by
applications. applications.
Paradoxically, if the underlying network is sufficiently powerful, Paradoxically, if the underlying network is sufficiently powerful,
the applications on top can evolve without similar pressures for the applications on top can evolve without similar pressures for
interoperability, leading to the closed but highly valuable services interoperability, leading to the closed but highly valuable services
discussed above. We call this the Permissionless Completeness discussed above. We call this the Permissionless Completeness
Problem. Problem.
2.4. Fundamentals of Communication 3.5. Fundamentals of Communication
There are also fundamental issues. For instance, speed of light; There are also fundamental issues. For instance, speed of light;
low-latency services can fundamentally only be provided through low-latency services can fundamentally only be provided through
globally distributed data centers. These are often provided built by globally distributed data centers. These are often provided built by
large organisations, although collaborative and data center or cloud large organizations, although collaborative and data center or cloud
computing service approaches also exist. computing service approaches also exist.
A similar issue has arisen in recent years around large-scale denial- A similar issue has arisen in recent years around large-scale denial-
of-service attacks, and how various entities can deal with them. of-service attacks, and how various entities can deal with them.
While the largest attacks affect all players (see, for instance, the While the largest attacks affect all players (see, for instance, the
Dyn attacks in October 2016), it is also true that large cloud- and Dyn attacks in October 2016), it is also true that large cloud- and
content delivery providers can better deal with such attacks due to content delivery providers can better deal with such attacks due to
their scale. This is one reason that attracts many network services their scale. This is one reason that attracts many network services
to such providers. to such providers.
2.5. Technology Factors 3.6. Technology Factors
One of the key questions is whether we are seeing developments that One of the key questions is whether we are seeing developments that
are driven by economic factors or whether fundamental reasons or lack are driven by economic factors or whether fundamental reasons or lack
available technology drives particular models. For instance, available technology drives particular models. For instance,
centralised solutions might desirable due to business incentives, or centralised solutions might desirable due to business incentives, or
they might be necessary because there is no distributed, they might be necessary because there is no distributed,
collaborative solution. collaborative solution.
For instance, some technical issues have historically not been easy For instance, some technical issues have historically not been easy
to solve, such as e-mail spam, which has lead to reliance on non- to solve, such as e-mail spam, which has led to reliance on non-
technical solutions. Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to technical solutions. Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to
run your own mail services, essentially forcing many organisations run your own mail services, essentially forcing many organizations
and individuals to employ larger providers. The issues relate and individuals to employ larger providers. The issues relate
directly to size of entities; no one can afford to disconnect from directly to size of entities; no one can afford to disconnect from
the largest providers. But as a small entity, there is little the largest providers. But as a small entity, there is little
leverage to convince peer entities or various supporting white/ leverage to convince peer entities or various supporting white/
blacklist entities to deal with you properly. blacklist entities to deal with you properly.
Many Internet services are based on gathering data about users, and Many Internet services are based on gathering data about users, and
using that data for, for instance, targeted advertisements. More using that data for, for instance, targeted advertisements. More
data from more users makes it possible to run a service more data from more users makes it possible to run a service more
accurately or with better results; here again scale brings accurately or with better results; here again scale brings
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
the security of the actual protocol exchanges improves with the the security of the actual protocol exchanges improves with the
introduction of this new technology, at the same time this implies a introduction of this new technology, at the same time this implies a
move from using a worldwide distributed set of DNS resolvers into, move from using a worldwide distributed set of DNS resolvers into,
again, more centralised global resolvers. While these resolvers are again, more centralised global resolvers. While these resolvers are
very well maintained (and a great service), they are potentially very well maintained (and a great service), they are potentially
high-value targets for pervasive monitoring and Denial-of-Service high-value targets for pervasive monitoring and Denial-of-Service
(DoS) attacks. In 2016, for example, DoS attacks were launched (DoS) attacks. In 2016, for example, DoS attacks were launched
against Dyn, one of the largest DNS providers, leading to some against Dyn, one of the largest DNS providers, leading to some
outages. outages.
3. Action 4. Call to Action
Are there assumptions about the Internet architecture that no longer Are there assumptions about the Internet architecture that no longer
hold in a world where larger, more centralised entities provide big hold in a world where larger, more centralised entities provide big
parts of the Internet service? If the world changes, the Internet parts of the Internet service? If the world changes, the Internet
and its technology/architecture may have to match those changes. and its technology/architecture may have to match those changes.
It appears that level the playing field for new entrants or small It appears that level the playing field for new entrants or small
players brings potential benefits. Are there technical solutions players brings potential benefits. Are there technical solutions
that are missing today? that are missing today?
Of course, it may well be that technology improvements are hard to Of course, it may well be that technology improvements are hard to
come by. Nevertheless, recognising the risks of consolidation in come by. Nevertheless, recognizing the risks of consolidation in
both current and proposed future technologies is the first step in both current and proposed future technologies is the first step in
proactively avoiding those risks where possible. proactively avoiding those risks where possible.
Assuming that one does not wish for regulation, technologies that Assuming that one does not wish for regulation, technologies that
support distributed architectures, open source implementations of support distributed architectures, open source implementations of
currently centralised network functions, or help increase user's currently centralised network functions, or help increase user's
control can be beneficial. Federation, for example, would help control can be beneficial. Federation, for example, would help
enable distributed services in situations where smaller entities enable distributed services in situations where smaller entities
would like to collaborate. would like to collaborate.
skipping to change at page 7, line 41 skipping to change at page 10, line 21
additional, innovative services, and better match with users' needs. additional, innovative services, and better match with users' needs.
Silver bullets are rare, of course. Internet service markets Silver bullets are rare, of course. Internet service markets
sometimes fragment rather than cooperate through federation. And the sometimes fragment rather than cooperate through federation. And the
asymmetric power balances are easiest changed with data that is in asymmetric power balances are easiest changed with data that is in
your control, but it is much harder to change when someone else holds your control, but it is much harder to change when someone else holds
it. Nevertheless, the exploration of solutions to ensure the it. Nevertheless, the exploration of solutions to ensure the
Internet is kept open for new innovations and in the control of users Internet is kept open for new innovations and in the control of users
is very important. is very important.
What IETF topics that should be pursued to address some of the issues o What IETF topics that should be pursued to address some of the
around consolidation? issues around consolidation? Some of the topics for consideration
are discussed in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2.
What measurements relating to the developments centralization or o Are there open source efforts that should be pursued or kept being
consolidation should be pursued? pursued to ensure that a diversity of operators and networks can
use a particular technology? This is further discussed in
{{opensource]].
What research -- such as distributed Internet architectures -- should o What measurements relating to the developments centralization or
be driven forward? consolidation should be pursued? And what other research, such as
distributed Internet architectures, should be driven forward?
Some potential topics are discussed in Section 4.4.
4. Contributors 4.1. Open Interfaces
Standards and open source efforts continue to build many open
interfaces and APIs that allow systems interoperability and tailoring
of services. In some cases, however, the availability of open
interfaces definitions and software has not lead to the realization
of actual interfaces in this open manner. For instance, different
instant messaging systems have had a technical ability to be
interoperable with other systems, just like e-mail is interoperable
across systems, but have chosen to be disconnected.
Work in determining what open interfaces can provide benefits to
users as well be successfully deployed in the Internet ecosystem
would of course be useful.
4.2. Specific Standardization Choices
Sometimes the issue is not the availability of interfaces as such,
but rather fundamental architectural choices with regards to how
Internet systems should be built.
Often this relates to how centralized or distributed deployments are
targeted. And even if a distributed, broad deployment model is
targeted, he expectations may not match reality when economies of
scale, DDoS resilience, market consolidation, or other factors have
come into play. These factors can result in the deployed reality
being highly concentrated.
This is a serious issue for the Internet, as concentrated,
centralized deployment models present risks to user choice, privacy,
and future protocol evolution. On occasion, the differences to
expectations can be immediate, but can also occur much later.
Some examples of these issue include current work in DNS where we may
see concentration through the use of globally available common
resolver services, which evolve rapidly and can offer better
security. But the concentration of these queries into few services
creates new security and privacy concerns.
Another example is email, which started out as many providers running
in a largely uncoordinated fashion, but which has since then seen
significant market consolidation and a need for coordination to
defend against attacks such as spam. The coordination and
centralized defense mechanisms scale better for large entities, which
has fueled additional consolidation.
Awareness of these issues while working on standards would be useful,
so that the issues can be taken into account and appropriately
mitigated. To begin with, those of us Interested in the broader
questions about Internet development and Internet researchers are
needed to identify some of the effects that new technology
developments may pose.
4.3. Open Source
Many key Internet infrastructure services (e.g., DNS servers), end-
user applications (e.g., browsers) and technology components (e.g.,
operating systems or protocol implementations) are commonly
implemented using open source solutions.
This is often true even if there's a large entity that is in charge
of large fraction of development and deployment for a particular
technology. This is a good thing, as it ensures that others have a
fair chance of changing the technology in question, should the large
entity drive their use of the technology in some direction that does
not benefit the users. For instance, users and other organizations
have traditionally been able to either run their own browser versions
or provided extensions that suit their needs better than the default
system.
As a result, continuing to have this ecosystem is important safety
valve and competition opportunity.
4.4. Research Challenges
There are number of different research directions for which further
work would be useful.
The first is about measurements; is the Internet indeed
consolidating, and if so, by how much, and in what aspects? Also,
where are Internet's traffic flows concentrating, and how is this
changing over time?
There are also questions about the trends and their relationships to
technology: Has Internet technology influenced the consolidation
trends in some manner? And conversely, how Internet consolidation
influences the development of the Internet infrastructure and
architecture?
Finally, research on topics that would likely yield results that
increase the diversity and de-centralization in the Internet would
obviously be welcome. This can include any de-centralized
technologies, but in particular distributed Internet architecture is
an Interesting topic.
5. Contributors
Much of the text in this memo is from a blog article written by Jari Much of the text in this memo is from a blog article written by Jari
Arkko, Mark Nottingham, Christian Huitema, Martin Thomson, and Brian Arkko, Mark Nottingham, Christian Huitema, Martin Thomson, and Brian
Trammell for the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and from a blog Trammell for the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and from a blog
article written by Jari Arkko and Brian Trammell APNIC and RIPE. article written by Jari Arkko and Brian Trammell APNIC and RIPE.
Some parts of the text have also come from a future workshop
description developed in the IAB, primarily by Christian Huitema and
Ted Hardie.
5. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank IAB members, Geoff Huston, Gonzalo The authors would like to thank IAB members, Geoff Huston, Amelia
Camarillo, Mirjam Kuehne, Robert Mitchell, Olaf Kolkman, and many Andersdotter, Gonzalo Camarillo, Mirjam Kuehne, Robert Mitchell, Olaf
others for interesting discussions in this problem space. Kolkman, and many others for interesting discussions in this problem
space.
6. Informative References 7. Informative References
[Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000,
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet>.
[Boyle] "Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and
Hardwired Censors", Duke Law School,
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/
faculty_scholarship/619/ , 1997.
[Clark] Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
Protocols", In Symposium Proceedings on Communications
Architectures and Protocols, 106-114. SIGCOMM '88. New
York, NY, USA, ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/52324.52336 ,
1988.
[Cowheyetal]
Cowhey, P., Aronson, J., and J. Richards, "Shaping the
Architecture of the US Information and Communication
Technology Architecture: A Political Economic Analysis",
Review of Policy Research 26 (1-2), pp. 105-125. , 2009.
[DolataSchrape]
Dolata, U. and J. Schrape, "Collectivity and Power on the
Internet: A Sociological Perspective", Springer
International Publishing. Page 85. , 2018,
<www.springer.com/de/book/9783319784137>.
[Frischmann]
Frischmann, B., "Privatization and Commercialization of
the Internet Infrastructure", Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev.
2, pp. 1-25. , 2001.
[Gilmore] "First Nation in Cyberspace", TIME International (see
http://kirste.userpage.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/
internet-article.html) , December 1993.
[Gizmodo] "I Cut The 'Big Five' Tech Giants From My Life. It Was
Hell", Gizmodo, https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/02/i-cut-
the-big-five-tech-giants-from-my-life-it-was-hell/ ,
February 2019.
[ISOC] "Consolidation in the Internet economy", Internet Society,
https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/ , 2019.
[LitanRivlin]
Litan, R. and A. Rivlin, "Projecting the Economic Impact
of the Internet", American Economic Review 91 (2), pp.
313-317 , 2001.
[Mansell] Mansell, R. and M. Javary, "Emerging Internet Oligopolies:
A Political Economy Analysis", In Miller, Edythe S.and
Samuels, Warren J., (eds.) An Institutionalist Approach to
Public Utilities Regulation. Michigan State University
Press, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 162-201. ISBN
9780870136245 , 2002, <https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/204420.pdf>.
[RFC1192] Kahin, B., "Commercialization of the Internet summary
report", RFC 1192, DOI 10.17487/RFC1192, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1192>.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996, Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[Smyrnaios]
Smyrnaios, N., "Internet Oligopoly: The Corporate Takeover
of Our Digital World", Emerald Publishing Ltd. , 2018.
[Stiglitz]
Stiglitz, J., "Joseph Stiglitz: Are markets efficient, or
do they tend towards monopoly? The verdict is in", 2016,
<https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/joseph-stiglitz-
are-markets-efficient-or-do-they-tend-towards-monopoly-
the-verdict-is-in/>.
[VanSchewick]
van Schewick, B., "Internet Architecture and Innovation",
MIT Press , 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
Ericsson Ericsson
Kauniainen 02700
Finland
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Brian Trammell Brian Trammell
ETH Zurich ETH Zurich
Email: ietf@trammell.ch Email: ietf@trammell.ch
Mark Nottingham Mark Nottingham
Fastly
Email: mnot@mnot.net Email: mnot@mnot.net
Christian Huitema Christian Huitema
Private Octopus Inc. Private Octopus Inc.
Email: huitema@huitema.net Email: huitema@huitema.net
Martin Thomson Martin Thomson
Mozilla Mozilla
Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Nuage Networks Nuage Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
Email: mail@nielstenoever.net
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
80 lines changed or deleted 393 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/