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

willi uebelherr willi.uebelherr at gmail.com
Sun May 18 00:24:14 UTC 2014

Dear Andrew,

you wrote:
"You're nevertheless right that the Internet is the inter-networking of
all networks."

I don't remember, that i say this. I say, this have to be. And this is 
very different.

You wrote:
"that the Internet is _by definition_ voluntary carrying of one 
another's packets."

I don't know, in what reality you are living. Never i see this. I see 
only, that the real network is monopolized and the people have to pay 
for transport of her data. And only if you pay your packets are transpòrted.

IP address

We have strictly to seperate local and global addresses.

 From the 64 bit global numberspace we get:
510 x 10^6 km^2 / 2^64 = ca. 28 x 10^-12 km^2.
But this equation is only valid with a symetrical coordinate system.

And for the 64 bit local address? You mean it is not sufficient?

Mobile devices

I hope, that with my last answer it is clear what i mean to mobile devices.

And with the devices in the orbital space? Never i make any special 
thinking about this few devices. It is not important for me and for us.


Why the routers today use the same in the background? Maybe, you don't 
understand the principles of geo-routing. But i am shure, this is not a 
question of intelligence. It is more a question of will to think.


Every time in our history we had processes of transformation. It is easy 
in general to establish a parallel system, also possible in regional 
areas, to overcome the existing system. This is never a technical problem.

many greetings, willi
Jinotepe, Nicaragua

Am 04/05/2014 6:21, schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
> Hello,
> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:00:13AM -0600, willi uebelherr wrote:
>> Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
> With one exception, I agree with the above statement.  I don't know
> what "local" means.  In networking, it usually means "topologically
> local", in which case "local network" and "network" are just synonyms,
> and we just add the "local" to differentiate cases when we also have
> more than one such local network in play (i.e. in an internetworking
> case).  From other things you say, however, I get the feeling that you
> mean "geographic location" when you talk about "local".  In that case,
> the above statement is certainly false today.
> You're nevertheless right that the Internet is the inter-networking of
> all networks.  This gets to a central fact, too often overlooked in
> our discussions, that the Internet is _by definition_ voluntary
> carrying of one another's packets.
> In any case, there is a central flaw in your proposal that makes it
> unworkable in two ways.
>> 3) The IP address
>> The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the
>> world coordinate system. We use 64-bit for global and 64-bit for
>> local address. Because the world coordinate system WK84 is
>> distributed asymmetrically, we should strive for a symmetrical
>> system of coordinates. Maybe it already exists.
> Given the other things you say, it seems to me that your proposal
> requires that the addresses are _strictly_ linked to geography,
> because routing has to use the geographic location of a device in
> order to route packets.  That's going to be really hard to build a
> network atop, because if the end point is in motion its address
> changes all the time.  Indeed, its address might change for every
> packet, and I would have to know in advance where the other end of my
> connection was going to be just to send the packet.  Given that an
> enormous amount of the growth in traffic comes from mobile devices,
> this is not a theoretical problem.
> To make this even logically possible, therefore, you need to invent a
> protocol by which I can tell everyone else on the Internet where I am,
> apparently without any central co-ordinating function).  If the answer
> is "GPS", it won't do, because the GPS resolution is insufficiently
> fine to differentiate two devices that I am carrying with me.
> If you're going to argue that you can use GPS to co-ordinate router
> addresses and then let the router sort out the addresses it routes,
> that's still no use.  You could have more than one router in the same
> rack, for instance, and GPS resolution isn't fine enough for this
> (even supposing that we got to use military precision, which seems
> far-fetched).  You also then have a problem of address governance,
> it's just distributed, because there needs to be some way by which a
> router decides which address is associated with which device, and
> we're back into the same ball game we're playing today.
> So, quite apart from the technical problems that were caused by
> nailing identifiers to physical location (a problem bad enough that
> phone companies did work and spent money many years ago to break that
> tight relationship, some time before mobile devices were important),
> as near as I can tell your proposal is not technically feasible at
> all.
> Supposing it were feasible, however, you're setting us up for a
> different problem.  By linking all of this stuff to geography, you're
> throwing away an enormous number of addresses.  You have the first 64
> bits for routers, but that's based on location.  Since routers are
> unlikely to be uniformly distributed around the Earth, the bulk of all
> address space will be empty.  Also, some places will be very dense
> with devices.  Maybe 64 bits is plenty for all the addresses in a
> given router's geolocal area, but at the very least you're going to
> need to do the analysis.  (In passing, also, I note that you had
> "regional" things in your description, but there didn't seem to be a
> way of identifying regions.  It strikes me anyway that regions are not
> obviously politically neutral, so I have a hard time seeing how
> they're going to get us away from the problems of governance.)
>> The routing (geo-routing) is based on the destination address of the
>> packet relative to the position of the router. From the distance and
>> the angle wc can easy make the decisions.
> This empahsis on distance and angle certainly explains why you wanted
> to specify the link technology in your addressing architecture.  That
> seems to me like an excellent way to bake in obsolete technology,
> however.  What if we're not using radio waves?
> Also, note, that your addressing system works only for Earth-bound
> systems.  You need a completely new addressing scheme for (for
> instance) networking with spacecraft.  Since work has already started
> on interplanetary internetworking (see
> e.g. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/730.html),
> this is going to be a problem.
> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I can't see how any of your
> proposal can interoperate with the existing Internet.  If it can't,
> then what you are suggesting is that we have to cut over to some
> completely new architecture.  Presumably, we'd have to do that all at
> once, or else the intermediate co-ordination mechanism would have a
> very long life (and getting rid of such mechanisms is the whole point
> of your proposal, AFAICT).  So that requires a "flag day".  The last
> time we had a co-ordinated switchover of everything on the Internet,
> you could get a list, on paper, of the names and addresses of all the
> people (not endpoints!) connected to the Internet.  That event didn't
> come off as planned.  Why do you think a co-ordinated switchover would
> work this time?  If you don't think you need one, please explain why
> not.
> Best regards,
> A

Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.

More information about the discuss mailing list