Is the Internet Like the Highway System

1
Is the Internet Like the Highway System?

• A Devils Advocate View
• December 9, 2003

2
Basic Problem

• There are a number of similarities between the
  Internet and the (Interstate) Highway System.
• Some of these may be illustrative for thinking
  about how to build a secure Internet alternative.
• However, these similarities may only be
  superficial.
• If so, its important to understand where the
  analogy breaks down.

3
Topology

• Similarities
• The Internet and the Interstate are each a
  network of networks.
• Both the Interstate Highway and the Internet are
  fully functional in providing local transport for
  traffic. However, the primary value of a
  subnetwork comes through its interconnection with
  other subnetworks. Thus, within each system the
  subnetworks are (somewhat) dependent on each
  other.
• Differences
• The Internet has overlapping, competing networks,
  whereas the Interstate has geographically-distinct
  , non-overlapping networks that have forced
  interconnections
• An ISP can build a road to every city or person
  in the world, a state highway department
  cannotit can only reach those within its
  geographic borders
• On the Internet, taking an alternate route from
  NY to LA (e.g. through Canada rather than Texas)
  slows you down by microseconds. On the
  Interstate, taking an alternate route from NY to
  LA slows you down by hours or days and is not
  usually a viable alternative.
• These differences have severe implications of the
  inherent and fundamental economies that surround
  the Internet and Interstate. (See more about why
  ISPs are different than states)

4
ISPs and States

• Similarities
• Subnetworks correspond to network locality.
• One aspect of locality is geography. Travel
  times in both networks scale linearly with
  geographic distance (although the Internet is
  much faster, of course).
• Another aspect is administrative locality.
• For the road system, administrative locality goes
  along with geography. The owner and operator of
  the local network is the State.
• For the Internet, administrative locality is that
  of the Autonomous System (AS). The owner and
  operator of the AS is the Internet Service
  Provider (ISP).

5
ISPs and States

• Differences
• Choice users can trivially choose one ISP over
  anothereach will provide identical service.
  Users cannot choose one state highway over
  another unless they are willing to sacrifice
  hours or days of their time. This has huge
  effects on economics of decision making.
• Policy concerns states are concerned with
  everything from economics to human well-being,
  ISPs are concerned only with the bottom line.
  States are supposed to protect/develop the
  commons, ISPs will trash the commons for their
  own benefit. The two bodies have different
  motivators and make decisions differently.
• Cooperation required state must cooperate in
  order to create a useful highway system, but ISPs
  do not have to cooperate in the same way.
  Global-scale private networks do exist.
• Competition ISPs compete for Internet customers,
  States do not compete for Interstate customers.
  This leads to weird economically-motivated
  situations (e.g. ISP interconnections are really
  slow because neither ISP has an incentive to make
  it fastthey would be paying not only for their
  own customers benefit but also for competitors
  customers benefit). States are forced by Feds to
  make fast interconnections.
• Since the motivations and decision-making
  environments of states and ISPs are fundamentally
  different, they can only be equated to a certain
  extent.

6
ISPs and States

• What would ISPs look like if they were equivalent
  to states?
• Each ISP covers distinct and separate geographic
  area
• ISP funded by taxpayers in that region
• Everyone in that region or sending packets
  through that region must use that specific ISP
• ISP receives federal funds to pay for fast
  interconnections with other ISPs
• ISP limits access to adult content for all
  those under 16 (or something like this) in order
  to maintain common good
• Clearly this does not look like todays Internet
  reality, so comparisons between ISPs and states
  must be tempered

7
Robustness

• Similarities
• Both networks are robust to the loss of
  individual components.
• In the case of a local disruption, rerouting can
  be used to redirect traffic and maintain system
  performance.
• However, the performance of each network can
  suffer from congestion.
• Differences
• Vast differences in time/distance scales affect
  what is possible
• Rerouting FL to LA through Canada instead of
  Texas not really feasible on Interstate, but
  trivial and nearly cost-free on Internet

8
Infrastructure/Topology

• Similarities
• In order to take advantage of the economic
  benefits of multiplexing, efficient design
  dictates that the network constructed as a
  hierarchy.
• The result of this hierarchy is that when
  traversing great distances, traffic tends to be
  aggregated on to a few long distance trunks.
• Differences
• Building backbone (high capacity, high speed)
  links is expensive and scales with distance on
  Interstate
• Building backbone (high capacity, high speed)
  links is expensive but usually does NOT scale
  with distance on Internet. Fiber is cheap,
  routers and people are expensive. So large
  expenses scale with number of nodes rather than
  with distance.

9
Prior State

• Highway System, pre-Interstate
• Impossible to go cross-country by automobile.
  Army, commerce, everyday people cant get there
  from here
• Random collection of state highways that do not
  interconnect. No overarching standards body.
• Everyone in the entire country wants an
  interstatebusinesses, people, governmentbecause
  everyone in the entire country will use it
• Internet, pre-Future Internet project
• An Internet exists. It is a hugely successful and
  useful medium that provides a service sufficient
  to meet the demands of nearly all of its users.
  In fact, it is expressly designed to be generic
  and inclusive.
• It has established and respected self-governing
  bodies that ensure standards.
• What it lacks is the ability to serve a small
  segment of users (i.e. security-sensitive
  services)

10
Governability

• Highway System
• Federal government has authority to control every
  aspect of Interstate system, if it desires
• Rare exceptions unsafe Mexican trucks (NAFTA)
• Internet
• No one has authority to govern Internet
• Best you can do is promote a standard and hope it
  catches on globally

11
Differences

• The road system is one in which there are clearly
  defined responsibilities.
• Users must obtain a vehicle operator license.
• To obtain the license, they must demonstrate the
  ability to follow best practices in safety.
• The license identifies them and makes them
  accountable to following the rules of the road
• Not all vehicles are permitted on the highway.
• Vehicles must meet standards for safety.
• Manufacturers are held accountable for unsafe
  designs.

12
Differences (2)

• Not all road designs are permitted.
• Best engineering practices in road design and
  maintenance are dictated by national standards
  organizations.
• Practically speaking, ISPs are tied to standards,
  as well.
• The road system is actively policed.
• Highway patrol monitors the behavior of
  individual users.
• Consumer protection groups and a product
  liability make sure that vehicle manufacturers
  are following the rules.
• The federal government audits the Interstate
  system to ensure that States are following proper
  maintenance guidelines (?)

13
Differences (3)

• In order to promote safety and protect national
  security, the federal government offers subsidies
  and other economic incentives.
• Highway funding for states requires that they
  follow government guidelines (e.g., speed limits,
  drinking age, etc.)
• Individuals receive subsidies to operate low
  emission vehicles
• Do vehicle manufacturers receive incentives for
  design of better vehicles?

14
Conjecture

• The Internet and Interstate have similarities and
  differences that reflect both policy differences
  and more fundamental differences.
• The Interstate project can serve as inspiration
  on a number of fronts, though its used must be
  informed and tempered by differences between the
  two projects
• Simply because there are so many differences one
  could point out, we should be wary of appearing
  to rely or build on this analogy too heavily.
  Dont want to risk the larger ideas, which are so
  important.

15
Remainder of Slides Unchanged
16
The Interstate Highway System

• The Interstate Highway system was developed on
  top of the existing road network
• It did not replace the pre-existing highway
  system - it complemented it and extended its
  utility
• Its vastly superior effectiveness and
  affordability made it irresistible to users.
• Its successful adoption was the result of strong
  economic incentives for key support industries
  (gas stations, hotels, restaurants) that
  benefited tremendously from it.
• While desirable to all, a national system of
  interstate roads could only be effectively
  coordinated through federal efforts
• The federal government had to work closely in
  partnership with the highway owners and operators
  (the states)
• Roles and responsibilities had to be worked out
  for each of the key stakeholders owners and
  operators, vehicle manufacturers, and users

17
The Interstate Highway System (2)

• The Highway System has clearly defined roles and
  responsibilities
• For vehicle manufacturers there are standards
  for the types of vehicles that are allowed to
  travel on our highways.
• Vehicles must pass safety tests (e.g. crash
  tests)
• Vehicles must pass environmental tests (e.g.
  emissions)
• Vehicles must follow norms (e.g. left-side
  steering wheels)
• For owners and operators there are standards for
  the way in which the infrastructure must be built
  and maintained.
• Roads must comply with standard widths, slopes,
  surface grades.
• Roads and bridges must satisfy safety standards
  (e.g. for earthquakes)
• Roads must follow norms (e.g. lane markings,
  signage, lighting)
• For users there are standards for traveling on
  the highways
• Users must obtain a vehicle operator license,
  updated regularly. There are different classes
  of operator licenses, based on vehicle type
• Users must follow prescribed traffic laws (e.g.
  speed limits)
• There are norms for vehicle operation (e.g. use
  of signals, right of way)

18
The Interstate Highway System (3)

• The Interstate Highway System should not be taken
  as a literal model for building a Future
  Internet, however
• it can serve as a template thinking about the
  types of roles and responsibilities that might
  need to be defined
• it may provide inspiration for the types of
  relationships that the federal government might
  need to develop with infrastructure owners and
  operators
• it may yield insight into methods for creating
  the appropriate economic incentives for the
  various stakeholders
• it can serve as an example for the incremental
  development, deployment, and adoption of a
  critical infrastructure
• it demonstrates how the federal government can
  facilitate a management framework that is
  effective without heavy-handed regulation.

19
Vision for a Future Internet

• A network that is an appropriate foundation for
  the deployment and support of critical
  infrastructure systems, thereby enhancing our
  national security
• A network in which there are clearly defined
  roles, responsibilities, and accountability for
  its owners, operators, support industries, and
  users
• A network that grows incrementally on top of the
  existing mesh of intranets and extranets, driven
  by a properly incentivized innovation community
• A network that interfaces and coexists with
  legacy infrastructure, providing incremental
  benefits to all who choose to participate
• A network that has self-sustaining economics

20
A Potential Opportunity

• The federal government has a real need to
  accelerate the deployment of a secure cyber
  platform to support critical infrastructures, but
  does not want to resort to regulation.
• The government has considered developing a secure
  intranet (GovNet) for its own use.
• ISPs (the owners and operators of the current
  Internet infrastructure) are in financial trouble
  and looking for a sustainable economic model.
• Individual ISPs (Sprint) have announced the
  deployment of a secure network for government
  purposes.

21
A (Modest) Proposal

• The federal government should
• commission ISPs to deploy
• a secure, semi-private network platform
• suitable for the operation of critical
  infrastructures
• and in parallel to the existing commercial
  Internet.
• We will refer to this alternate network as
  SuperNet (yuckneed something better?)

22
Prerequisites

• Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for
  all owners, operators, users, and vendors
• Which ISPs will deploy and operate? With what
  responsibilities?
• Which technologies will be used? Who will
  provide them? With what responsibilities?
• What security best practices to employ?
• Who will be the users? What can they do? What
  are their responsibilities?
• What government agencies to fund and oversee?