Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet

D.Clark, J.Wroclawski,

K.Sollins, R.Braden

Presenter: Baoning Wu

Why?

• Different Internet holders have interests that may be adverse to each other, and they vie to favor their particular interests.

• This is called TUSSLE.

• Accommodating this tussle is crucial to the evolution of the network’s technical architecture.

Structure of this paper

• Difference between the mechanisms and society.

• Outline some proposed design principles

• Discussion of some tussle space

Natures of engineering and society

• Engineers: solve the problems by designing mechanisms with predictable consequences.

• Society: dynamic management of evolving and conflicting interests.

Internet landscape

• Users

• Commercial ISPs

• Private sector network providers

• Governments

• Intellectual property rights holders

• Providers of content and higher level services

Principles

• Highest-level: design for variation in outcome

• Two specific principles:– Modularize the design along tussle boundaries– Design for choice

Implications from principles

• Choice often requires open interfaces• Tussles often happen across interfaces• It matters if the consequence of choice is visible• Tussles have different flavors• Tussles evolve over time• No such thing as value-neutral design• Don’t assume that you design the answer

Tussle spaces (1)

• Economics– Providers tussles as they compete and

consumers tussle with providers to get the service they want at a low price

– Our principle of design of choice into mechanism is the building block of competition

Examples

• Provider lock-in from IP addressing– To incorporate mechanisms that make it easy

for a host to change address

• Value pricing– No value-neutral design: tunneling is good for

consumers

Examples (continue)

• Residential broadband access– Municipal deployment of fiber as a platform

for competitors

• Competitive wide area access– Support source routing with a recognition of

the need for payment

Tussle spaces (2)

• Trust– Many users do not trust each other.– Do not trust many of the parties they actually

want to talk to– Less and less trust the software they have to

run

– So “design for choice” here

Tussle space (3)

• Openness– The openness to innovation that permits a new

application to be deployed

– Separate the tussle of vertical integration from the desire to sustain innovation

Old principles

• End to end arguments– Still valid, but need a more complex

articulation

• Separation of policy and mechanism– No pure separation of policy from mechanism,– But is kind of isolation

conclusion

• Do not deny the reality of the tussle, but recognize our power to shape it.

• Questions?