On 10/17/06, Michael Maranda <mmaranda@afcn.org> wrote:
Yes, in my brief phrase "Internet as an agreement(s)" I think we lead towards an understanding of this ... it's an agreement around TCP/IP ... that TCP/IP be a protocol over which we can define additional protocols, and around peering agreements by which traffic will be carried through networks held by others.
Is TCP/IP really a core, defining feature of the Internet? Wouldn't it still be "the Internet" if we could somehow replace TCP/IP with something functionally equivalent? I have a difficult time making the current networking protocols selected out of the middle of the networking stack a defining feature of what I view as a merely a means of linking disparate networks. Couldn't we rightfully say that a device on the other side of a bridge linking a non-IP network to the Internet is just as much on the Internet as a device on an IP network? I certainly don't deny (a) the major historical role that TCP/IP has played and continues to play in the development and operation of the Internet and (b) the dominance of TCP/IP in the majority of computer networks. But it just seems to me that TCP/IP as the underlying protocol of the majority of the Internet is a historical accident. Other protocols that provided the same functionality could just as easily been used. An Internet with some other functionally-equivalent protocol would still be the Internet just as my LAN at home is still essentially the same despite moving from Ethernet over Cat5 to 802.11g over the air. It also seems to me that the slow-moving-but-supposedly-imminent move to IPv6 provides some support for my argument since we are replacing one of the core protocols used on the Internet with another protocol but it's still going to be the Internet. I am also uncomfortable conflating the effects and uses of the Internet with its definition. Your initial thoughts related to "agreements" seems to me to be the closest to what I would call a "good" definition. Kevin