Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:29 , Christopher Wolff <chris () vergeinternet com> wrote:
>
> Hi NANOG;
>
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when I should be sleeping.
>
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the conversation.
>
> Use Case 1:  Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality.  It is stated that round trip latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full 
> duplex at the cell edge to prevent nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.  

That’s only true if you’re trying to send stereo full frame video to the goggles from a remote location. If you have 
intelligence on the user device and can render a lot of the stuff locally, that bandwidth requirement drops 
dramatically.

> Use Case 2:  A little closer to “IoT”. An autonomous vehicle under remote control requires 100 feet to stop with LTE 
> vs 20 feet with 5G.  

An autonomous vehicle shouldn’t be taking cellular data into account for stopping distances… Onboard sensors should be 
able to stop the vehicle when time is critical.

> Use Case 3:  A Lidar near-miss sensor at an intersection requires 1ms from the traffic operations center.

I’m not sure I understand the meaning of this statement. Is the traffic operations center controlling the vehicles 
approaching the intersection? Why would the vehicles not be able to sort this out autonomously?

> I hypothesize that there is a ‘breaking point’ between safety, health, and latency and traditional IP.  

I hypothesize that if you are doing life support or life critical operations over traditional IP, you are doing 
something very very wrong and people will suffer dire consequences as a result.

> Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and protocols that are low latency compliant?  
> Will we be building an infinite number of mobile edge compute boxes?  

It sounds like your idea of how tomorrow’s applications will operate will require some re-thinking. I know my Tesla, 
for example, when in full self-driving (beta) mode does not phone home
before it decides to hit the brakes, swerve, or take other emergency actions for example.

> If there’s an academic study describing this potential issue it would help kickstart some interesting research.

I think that the issue will usually be obviated by moving the time-critical decisions closer to the edge (or never 
centralizing them to begin with).

Owen

> Best,
> Christopher
>
> > On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Alexander Lyamin <la () qrator net <mailto:la () qrator net>> wrote:
> >
> > It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications that are implemented in this software.
> >
> > And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols 
> > freshly out just this year "is OK".
> >
> > ....  Cyberhippies.... 
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 05:12 Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com <mailto:cb.list6 () gmail com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff <chris () vergeinternet com <mailto:chris () vergeinternet com>> 
> > wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?  
> >
> > It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other scholarly article that implies that 
> > the Internet is doomed.
> >
> > In so much as IoT devices are ipv4 udp amplifiers
> >
> > https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/ 
> > <https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2014/programme/amplification-hell-revisiting-network-protocols-ddos-abuse/>