Layer 8

Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 were technical in nature, examining communications networks. However, we also have to consider the so-called “layer 8”, the human part, which (to be more specific) spans three additional layers atop the standard ISO/OSI model, the layers 8 to 10.

Bruce Schneier and RSA define the “missing” layers from the standardized 7-layer models as follows:

• Layer 8: The individual person.
• Layer 9: The organization.
• Layer 10: Government or legal compliance

There are ongoing discussions on what centralization actually means in all kinds of spaces. One of the more interesting trends is that people question whether the term …

Recap

Part 1 focused on Baran’s terminology on this topic. Part 2 then briefly explored how graph theory treats network centralization, noting that multiple definitions exist, some of which align better with Baran’s terminology than others. Each definition of centrality has its own rationale; for that reason, analysis frameworks often include several of them.

For the most part, “betweenness” seems to be a measure that matches Baran’s thoughts rather well. In short, it measures how often a node sits on the shortest path between other nodes, thus becoming a likely centralization point the more often that is the case.

A distinguishing factor in centrality functions …

Introduction

There’s reason I ended up colouring the diagram as I did, and it has to do with maths.

I wanted to lead up to graph theory – gently, that is. This isn’t going to be a particularly deep discussion, I’m just going to focus on notions of centrality.

The distinction in mathematics between a graph and a network is not particularly strong, depending on how you squint at it. A network is a graph, in which edges (links) and vertices (nodes) may have attributes.

Consider for example that every link in our little diagram here had a different line speed at which we can transmit data. That would be an edge attribute, and could determine the fastest path between any …

Introduction

At IETF121 in Dublin earlier this year, I was surprised to see my name appear on a number of slides, starting with the Discussion of Next Steps presentation Dirk and Lixia gave. I’d been commenting on the list on terminology related to the problem of Internet centralization.

The topic is fairly widely discussed these days. Other than DINRG, which of course has been formed to collect research on the issue, recent years also saw the publication of Mark Nottingham’s RFC on Centralization, Decentralization, and Internet Standards on the topic. I remember making a few comments on it before it was finalized.

This year’s DINRG also saw mention of Mark McFadden’s …