[discuss] Net Neutrality: Perhaps the FCC is the wrong agency?

Sat Jun 7 03:04:11 UTC 2014

Dear JFC.
i would like know your name. I don't like any synonyms. But i write this 
answer because i have some caveats. Not big, but important.

On the end you wrote:
"..., therefore this is why we need to prepare ourselves."

This is a general necessity. Independent of any organisation in the 
internet construction.

"As I have mentionned the WSIS has decided that the information society 
(hence its systems) was to be people centered / à caractère humain / 
centrada en la persona."

This is our general base. The people are important and not any 
institution. We can disolve all institutions and organisations, what we 
do not need.

"The real issue would be a unique universal numbering plan we could use 
everywhere in the digisphere, probably based upon a specialized DNS zone."

For what we need a specialized DNS zone? We have only one. We have to 
transform the URL from text to number and reverse. No more.

"The main thing is to compile the RFCs from a Independent User (IUser) 
point of view in order to clearly determine what is already reserved by 
the IETF/IANA and what is available to users. In the DNS and addressing 
areas."

Never, my friend. All is available to the users.

On the begin of your answer you wrote:
"... I do not know if this is something usable. My worry is however the 
ocean waste of addresses."

We have always the same question. Also today. How we organize it? We 
have 64 bit for the global address. And we have 64 bit for our local 
address. The IPv6 use only 64 bits. The rest are address modifiers.

In an earlier mail i formulate the global resolution. Earth surface / 
2^64. It is small enough. And local 2^64? I think, never any local 
network with all hosts and sensor devices can use this space.

But the local addressing scheme is totally independent from any globally 
principle. The local people can use, what they want.

many greetings, willi
Jinotepe, Nicaragua

Am 05/06/2014 18:58, schrieb FSP4NET:
> At 17:23 04/06/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>> > In this aggregate of Masters' VGN and Lasters'VGN that makes the
>> > internet there is no core. It is purely distributed and meshed.
>> > There is therefore the need to address things through an
>> > architectonics referential system, i.e. a system which does not
>> > depend on people, but on the universe itself or at least to a
>> > sufficiently stable and large part of it, i.e. a purely algorithmic
>> > hazardous portion of it.
>> Yes, this is my intention. And for that that i propose the geografical
>> defined IP address to make this very easy, because then we don't need
>> any Internet Gouvernance. We act together based on our common interest
>> for a free communication overall over the planet. A free communication
>> system for the free access to free knowledge for all people of our
>> (free) world.
>
> I have not made the computation of the room available in an IPv6 scheme.
> There are the GSM coordinates already in wide use. I do not know if this
> is something usable. My worry is however the ocean waste of addresses.
> This is why I am interested in a Fuller's dimaxion map. Another
> interesting approach is simply to use ... prefix+telephone
> numbers+extensions : this roughly takes into account the network and
> democraphic topology.
>
> As I have mentionned the WSIS has decided that the information society
> (hence its systems) was to be people centered/à caractère
> humain/centrada en la persona. Everyone and every corporation now has
> one or several téléphone numbers. There is an ENUM support by the DNS
> and probably several things to do to.
>
> If you are interested in it, this belongs to the various possibilities
> that I wiwh to consider IRT to my suggestion "Happy-IP". The real issue
> would be a unique universal numbering plan we could use everywhere in
> the digisphere, probably based upon a specialized DNS zone. The idea
> would be "http://uninum.org" being used along RFC 6116 and 6117, the DNS
> being open to every kind of names and numbers.
>
> The main thing is to compile the RFCs from a Independent User (IUser)
> point of view in order to clearly determine what is already reserved by
> the IETF/IANA and what is available to users. In the DNS and addressing
> areas. What is in place is to simplify the US VGN BUG oriented (Being
> Unilaterally Global) management. Since 1977 this was a last resort
> solution for stability. The removal of the NTIA "umbrella" makes the
> situation uncertain. This is why we need precautionary fail-secure
> contingency plans for the governance of our own VGNs. If the NTIA's
> project comes to an happy non-e-colonization end, this would be perfect.
> But this is not what appears to be under preparation, therefore this is
> why we need to prepare ourselves.
>
> Best
> jfc
> alliance spoke person
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>