draft-arkko-internet-consolidation-00.txt		draft-arkko-internet-consolidation.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: January 10, 2020 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		Apstra, Inc.
	October 23, 2018		N. ten Oever
			University of Amsterdam
			July 09, 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-02
	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 January 10, 2020.
	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 on services and systems that are daily used by a
			large population of Internet users. However, it can also create
			secondary effects, where the ability to collect information or to
			affect something is concentrated in that small set of organizations.
			Consolidation may also affect technology choices and the evolution of
			the Internet architecture. For example, 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 the Internet is indeed consolidating.
			It certainly appears so, but more quantitative research on this topic
			would be welcome. It is also possible that there is 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 layer than further down in
			the stack or in operating systems, as was the case some years ago.
			The second question is if we are 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 Internet consolidation is 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 reviewing 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], despite [RFC1192] describing 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 of
			thought vis-a-vis efficient markets and monopolies. The school of
			thought based on Adam Smith argues that unfettered markets tend to
			concentration of wealth and income, whereas liberal economists
			believe in efficient markets that stimulate competition.
			On the other hand, according to Joseph Stiglitz, 'many sectors -
			telecommunications, 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.
			Recently there is a growing body of literature that the currently
			observed consolidation into oligopolies and monopolies can be
			described as a failure of economic policy, which could be addressed
			with revamped, or improved anti-trust policies [Wu] [Khan]. On the
			other hand there are those who criticize these proposals for their
			economic determinism; merger reviews, company break-ups and
			'trustbusting' do not necessarily change the structure of a market.
			Technology might actually have a role to play in this as well. The
			IETF in specific, and the Internet governance regime complex [Nye] in
			general, has been designed as a distributed arrangement to prevent
			capture of the infrastructure by a single interest group or actor.
			Where power or control was centralized, specific governance
			arrangements were put into place to counter the centralization of
			power.
			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. The Internet Society's report summarised the market
	complex ecosystem. There are many underlying services whose		position 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
	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		o Facebook and Google have been estimated to account for 84% of
	other areas. Too many or too few choices create different kinds of		global digital advertising investment (excluding China).
			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, and browser engines is as important as that as of
			application stores or the browsers themselves.
			Of course, the Internet allows plenty of choice in these and 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 not to use the most commonly used Internet services
			[Gizmodo].
			Optimistic technologists ("digital libertarians") tend to believe
			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 these
			persons' privacy but rather whether some 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, such as the speed of light. Low-
	low-latency services can fundamentally only be provided through		latency services can fundamentally only be provided through globally
	globally distributed data centers. These are often provided built by		distributed data centers. These are often provided and/or built by
	large organisations, although collaborative and data center or cloud		large organizations, although collaborative 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,		of available technology drives particular models. For instance,
	centralised solutions might desirable due to business incentives, or		centralised solutions might be desirable due to business incentives,
	they might be necessary because there is no distributed,		or they might be necessary because there is no distributed,
	collaborative solution.		collaborative solution.
	For instance, some technical issues have historically not been easy		Some technical issues have historically not been easy to solve, such
	to solve, such as e-mail spam, which has lead to reliance on non-		as e-mail spam, which has led to reliance on non-technical solutions.
	technical solutions. Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to		Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to run your own mail
	run your own mail services, essentially forcing many organisations		services, essentially forcing many organizations and individuals to
	and individuals to employ larger providers. The issues relate		employ larger providers. The issues relate directly to size of
	directly to size of entities; no one can afford to disconnect from		entities; no one can afford to disconnect from the largest providers.
	the largest providers. But as a small entity, there is little		But as a small entity, there is little leverage to convince peer
	leverage to convince peer entities or various supporting white/		entities or various supporting white/blacklist entities to deal with
	blacklist entities to deal with you properly.		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 targeted advertisements. More data from more
	data from more users makes it possible to run a service more		users makes it possible to run a service more accurately or with
	accurately or with better results; here again scale brings		better results; here again scale brings advantages.
	advantages.
	Another trend is that more and more content is becoming available		Another trend is that more and more content is becoming available
	locally, from a content delivery or provider function directly on		locally, from a content delivery or provider function directly on
	your own ISP's network. We predict that eventually most content will		one's own ISP network. We predict that eventually most content will
	be delivered this way, reducing the role that global IP connections		be delivered this way, reducing the role that global IP connectivity
	across the Internet play. By some metrics this has already happened;		across the Internet plays. By some metrics this has already
	what practical - positive or negative - impacts might this have on		happened; what practical - positive or negative - impacts might this
	the Internet technology?		have on the Internet technology?
	There are also security tradeoffs. Large entities are generally		There are also security tradeoffs. Large entities are generally
	better equipped to move to more recent and more secure technology.		better equipped to move to more recent and more secure technology.
	For instance, the Domain Name System (DNS) shows signs of ageing but		For instance, the Domain Name System (DNS) shows signs of ageing but
	due to the legacy of deployed systems, has changed very slowly.		due to the legacy of deployed systems, has changed very slowly.
	Newer technology developed at the IETF enables DNS queries to be		Newer technology developed in accordance with IETF standards enables
	performed confidentially, but its deployment is happening mostly in		DNS queries to be performed confidentially, but its deployment is
	browsers that use global DNS resolver services, such as Cloudflare's		happening mostly in browsers that use global DNS resolver services,
	1.1.1.1 or Google's 8.8.8.8. This results in faster evolution and		such as Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 or Google's 8.8.8.8. This results in
	better security for end users.		faster evolution and better security for end users.
	However, if one steps back and considers the overall security effects		However, if one steps back and considers the overall security effects
	of these developments, the resulting effects can be different. While		of these developments, the resulting effects can be different. While
	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 leveling 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 helping increase users'
	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.
	Similarly, in an asymmetric power balance between users and services,		Similarly, in an asymmetric power balance between users and services,
	tools that enable the user to control what information is provided to		tools that enable the user to control what information is provided to
	a particular service can be very helpful. Some such tools exist, for		a particular service can be very helpful. Some such tools exist, for
	instance, in the privacy and tracking-prevention modes of popular		instance, in the privacy and prevention-tracking modes of popular
	browsers but why are these modes not the default, and could we		browsers, but why are these modes not the default, and could we
	develop them further?		develop them further?
	It is also surprising that in the age of software-defined everything,		It is also surprising that in the age of software-defined everything,
	we can program almost anything else except the globally provided,		we can program almost anything else except the globally provided,
	packaged services. Opening up interfaces would allow the building of		packaged services. Opening up interfaces would allow the building of
	additional, innovative services, and better match with users' needs.		additional, innovative services, and better match 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 user-
	your control, but it is much harder to change when someone else holds		controlled, 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 continue
	consolidation should be pursued?		to be 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 development of 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 led 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, 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 issues 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 a 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 research and development 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 is a large entity that is in charge
			of a large fraction of development and deployment for a particular
			technology. This is a good thing, as it provides a means for others
			to 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 an important safety
			valve and competition opportunity.
			4.4. Research Challenges
			There are a 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 the 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 does Internet
			consolidation influence the development of 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, Greg Skinner and many others for interesting discussions in
			this problem space. The authors would also like to thank all
			participants in the 2019 Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality
			(DEDR) IAB workshop held in Kirkkonummi, Finland, as well as the
			participants in the 2019 EuroDIG workshop on "Internet consolidation
			- opportunities and challenges".
	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.
			[Khan] Khan, L., "Amazon's Antritrust Paradox", The Yale Law
			Journal 126:710 , 2017.
			[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>.
			[Nye] Nye, J., "The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber
			Activities. Global Commission on Internet Governance",
			CIGI, Global Commission on Internet Governance , 2014.
			[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.
			[Wu] Wu, T., "The Curse of Bigness", Columbia Global Reports,
			New York, New York , 2018.
	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		Apstra, Inc.
	Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com		Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
			Niels ten Oever
			University of Amsterdam
			Email: mail@nielstenoever.net
End of changes. 55 change blocks.
	120 lines changed or deleted		461 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/