[discuss] Real world Impact of multiple roots

Tue Jan 28 15:37:15 UTC 2014

At 19:30 27/01/2014, Dr. Ben Fuller wrote:
>Thanks. This is very useful as were the links. If I understand you 
>correctly, two roots can be accommodated by our existing Internet. 
>We only need that they work together. Hence, the economic impacts 
>may not be a problem.

Ben,

As a general matter, you will easily understand that when one 
communicates one has to:

1. have something (data) to communicate
2. to formulate it in a format, language, encryption
3. to send it
4. to have it carried
5. to have it presented out of the format, possibly translated after 
having been decrypted
6. to have it obtained by the receiver in a way he can use
7. to have it understood/used.

The internet is responsible for task #4 from end to end, i.e. to 
transport the data of the message (datagram) you sent from host to 
host, i.e. from an IP address to an IP address. Period.

There are additional service tools that help sending and receiving 
it. One of these services is the DNS which associates a type of 
semantic address (named a domain name) to an IP address. The way this 
service is being used is shared among users: this permits the 
parameters (data of the equivalence name/IP) of one user to interfere 
with the parameters of another user on a per class basis. This is 
why, in the same class, the same data must be used. There is only one 
class being used (class "IN": this is what makes the ICANN/NTIA 
Internet for most of the users),however, there are 65,635 possible classes.

Another major limitation of the internet which was meant to have two phases:

(1) phase one: to be proof of the catenet concept,
(2) phase two: to become multitechnology transparent like Tymnet.

is that it supports only *one single format*: ASCII text. This means 
that task #2 and #5 cannot (1) optimize, secure, and multilingualize 
the network (2) support active content.

Up to Snowden, the gigantic lacks of the internet prototype architecture:

-          left everyone in the middle of "patches" (mails, web, dns, 
etc.) to insure a minimum of services
-          and their limitations and vulnerabilities were not 
understood by the public, users, or policymakers.

Today,

(1) people are still rather concerned about realizing the extent of 
digital intelligence (which is only a small part of big data). 
However, they will increasingly become horrified when understanding 
that the snooping is universally permitted by the (planned or 
erroneous) vulnerability of the technology, and still more when they 
understand that every CPU is a weapon that can be used against them 
by digital intruders, or for digital invaders to manipulate them.

(2) this is raising the end-users, people, politics, and governments 
awareness of the situation and of the digital risks in life. It is, 
therefore, possible now to engage in completing the network 
architecture as was planned 40 years ago without fearing that only 
crime will take advantage of the resulting innovation, due to the 
first phase minded status quo of most of the techies.

jfc