[discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works

Wed May 7 15:40:20 UTC 2014

At 06:37 05/05/2014, willi uebelherr wrote:
>The background
>We can distinguish two extremal poles.
>a) we support the desire from all people to a free communication
>b) we use the communication requirements in order to realize our own 
>interests.

Yes this is what the WSIS calls the people centered information 
society. And Einstein "cosmologic". Everyone (pole 1) is the center 
of her vision of the universe (pole 2).

>In general I formulate the following development principles:
>a) massively decentralized
>b) massively parallel
>c) massively redundant

This amounts to a massively meshed distributed system. I am always 
puzzled when a I look at an Internet bandwidth map. It looks so old 
to someone trained in telex, radio, and then Tymnet.

>The current restrictions are primarily the monopolization of 
>knowledge and a specific concentration of technical infrastructures. 
>But these restrictions have no inherent legitimacy. They are the 
>result of constructive design.

The responsibility is certainly with the lack of granularity of a 
non-supervised topology. They keep thinking on ways to optimize 
routing solution, but just think at the size of the catenet.

>But we know that diversity is an essential prerequisite for a strong 
>development.

I suppose you mean "diversity support". This is correct. The internet 
knows very well how to support diversity (by subsidiarity at the 
frange) but not many techies know it.

>We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human 
>knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is 
>always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for 
>legal systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our 
>individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and 
>contemporaries.

"Inevitably" is in the sole information/communication context where 
IPrights are to be protected (but not exclusively) to subsidize R&D 
and pay for the accomplished work.

This leaves the "intellition" free. Surprisingly 99% of our knowledge 
comes from free from tax, patent, etc. intellition and no one wants 
to talk about it, even to acknowldege its existence ... and lose 
billions if we did not leave it to NSA.

Intellition is what intelligenty makes sense from the information you 
know or can check via experimentation and communication. You eye 
gives 40 information to your brain, and your brain produced millions 
of intellition pixels, so you see. They have a state of the art 
intellition tool at NSA: it is called PRISM :-)

Look, the same information inferred by a journalist is subject to 
press protection, by you through the taxes you pay to your 
governement it belongs to shamefull NSA surveillance.

>Because not the needs of the people to free communication are the 
>foundation in the technical development of components for 
>communications systems, but the interests of capital utilization, 
>there are no reasonable technological systems. Therefore, we can 
>never make the present state of the technology the basis of our discussion.

I object this. The end to end IETF internet is not the proper 
technology. However, it is not because it would be bad or biased. It 
is simply because it is not finished. And this is a blessing. The 
network you call for is the interplus, i.e. a fringe to fringe 
encapsulation of the end to end internet. It is up to us to work on 
it. The Libre has the capacity to do it, when people start being 
bashed by the I*intelligencia.

The thing is simple:
- the internet misses the necessary presentation layer six (to house 
the necessary intelligence).

- plus means "presentation layer on the user side". This means that 
the internet fringe is (atthe user) after the edge (ISP to user 
link), what means that the "internet sub-network" as it was designed 
(cf. IEN 48) becomes a full real inter-plus network. Much first level 
IP needed.

- now you need to house the "plus" somewhere with its tools, 
interservices, etc. and to supervise its occurences/nodes. To do that 
you need an "intelligent use interface" (IUI) as a real or virtual 
"interbox" system. This is an inside network node under your control, 
your local systems will front-end.

At that IUI you can then house higher semiotic layers to add new 
communication experiences and services. And you can also locate layer 
7 service tables, commands, i.e. starting with your own classes 
(vision of the namespace) topzone directories (they call the root 
file) and local SuperIANA (IETF, DNS and other technologies).

The problem was to have this technically verified by the IETF. It 
called for two steps that had to be carefully respected.

1) to check that the DNS could support it. This came through IDNA2008 
which documents an embryonic IUI to that end (RFC 5895).
2) the internet could accept IDNA2008. This seems to be OK now: one 
can start working.

So, there is no problem in developping the "interplus" now. It only 
means that instead of sending datagrams you send intelligrams. 
Intelligrams are datagrams the content of which will be presented (by 
the receiving presentation layer) to the other end as pure datagrams. 
However they will fit the receiving end needs as specified in a prior 
fringe to fringe negociation or through a "netlocale" VGN parameter 
description file..

>Communication is always bidirectional. It also follows that we 
>consider in our technical terminology the client and server as a 
>unit. In our direct verbal communication, we also do this. 
>Technically that's not a problem.

Sorry, but our communications are self directional (monologue), very 
often bidirectionnal (dialogue) and more and more multidirectional 
(polylogue) such as on a mailing list. This is no problem, but it 
gives more possibilities.

>If we treat our connection paths for data transport such as public 
>roads, which everyone can use, then we immediately see the massive 
>limitations. Again, there is no technical reason. Always the people 
>in the local regions make their paths and trails usable for guests.

The limitation is money. Not money as such. But money the way it is 
managed and split. What we pay does go to the networks to the edge 
providers. Because the network was legally designed this way.

>Communication takes place primarily locally and regionally. In 
>families, between friends and colleagues. Therefore, it is natural 
>to organize our technical communication systems locally and 
>regionally. This eliminates much of the meaningless data transports.

Absolutely. But for this you have to pay it yourself and unlock many barriers.

This is because the economy and the racket has used another 
(decentralized) older model. The newtork flows money first. This is 
normal because it has a cost. But the data flow along the money 
lines, of which the contractual topology is outdated. So, there is a 
big work to accomplish in order to return the international newtork 
to a more sensible local/global design (please note that I use 
"local" in the IEN 48 "loose sense", as "peculiar to a particular newtork").

>I will summarize it briefly. We focus on the needs. We decentralize 
>and parallelize our activities for the construction of the 
>components for our global communication systems. We cooperate 
>worldwide. We help each other worldwide. We can do this because we 
>have the same needs for a free communication worldwide.

100% in agreement.

Up to now (1) I wanted to make sure DNS subsidiarity could work in 
every case: this seems OK (2) I wanted to know how to best approach 
the boring USG and US industry attitude in a friendly way: these list 
and Sao Paulo have shown this would lead to a new stalemate. And that 
their MSism on an equal footing basis could not be trusted.

This is why I am developping exactly what you say and for the reasons 
you quote. And I want to propose others like us to ally, in order to 
build the network we want along the worldwide cooperation you refer 
to. A network where we have the built-in intelligence to fool  snoopers.

The only question I have is that my project uses French. Cataluna is 
not far, so I expect we will have people copying us there. For the 
time being I have no one to translate the on-going work in English. I 
expect soon we are able to introduce a working set of IETF draft it 
will have to be in English. The idea is to discuss them on an equal 
footing (if possible multiculturally) MS basis, you are welcome to be 
on the list.

Let me know if you have someone around having French. Sorry, I have no German.

Best

(groupware lead by jfc)
FSP4NET bootstrapper.

>Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
>Quetzaltenango, Guatemala
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss