[discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun May 18 11:02:38 UTC 2014
I had a question related to one comment in particular:
I think, we have to create a totaly independent discussion about our
data transport sytems. Without state or private companies. Only with the
What infrastructure were you planning to use for "your" data transport
system that would not include the state or private companies?
On 5/17/2014 11:24 PM, willi uebelherr wrote:
> Dear Nathalie,
> with "microwave" it was a bad translation. I meant "directed radio",
> independent of the specific frequency spectrum and, of course,
> independent of the specific coding algorithms.
> I am not a high frequency physicist. But, i think, now we are 8
> billion people on the world. And if 1 promille of the people are
> willing to work for our technical systems and components then there
> are 8 million people. A very strong power.
> Symmetric transport capacity
> The transport systems need always to have in both direction the same
> capacity. Then all endnodes can decide to be also a server. Then all
> this nodes can communicate directly.
> "... eliminate 'all types of instances'...".
> This i don't understand completely. We have only text, graphic,
> speech. For our transport system it is not important. Only synchronous
> or asynchronous is important. We transport IP packets, header and
> data. No more. And we never look inside. The content can be any of
> this 3 types.
> It means, that the IP packet have his geografical destination in his
> destination address. And based of that we route. The routers today use
> the geografical information in the background. We use it in the
> Geocasting is a IPv6 construct and very stupid. We never use any
> cast-extension. We use only uni-cast, if you want to speak in this
> terminology. But i never use this.
> "When you refer to the regional network of regional centers and the
> global network of regional centers, are you referring to the Super
> IANA Jefsey was referring to? Are you aligned with Louis Pouzin's view
> of VGNs?"
> Now you hit me on my left foot (it is a german symbolic). Never i had
> any connection to IANA or ICANN or anything else. And VGN (Virtual Geo
> Network)? JFC from FSP4Net he spoke about. But, i don't understand the
> idea and discussion for that. But the basic ideas from FSP4Net and
> similar groups i support.
> I think, we have to create a totaly independent discussion about our
> data transport sytems. Without state or private companies. Only with
> the people.
> For that, what we need. We don't need "Governance" organisations.
> NetMundial could be a good instrument. But they have no interest for
> that. They think, they have to act as team of the goverments with
> power. In the "Outcome" document you can see it.
> "I believe we can solve Internet Governance through a better
> understanding of the technology of the Internet."
> Yes, dear Nathalie, this is the most important task what we have to
> do. And not to look, what exist. First, we have to look, what we need
> and then, what exist.
> many greetings, willi
> Jinotepe, Nicaragua
> Am 04/05/2014 9:14, schrieb nathalie coupet:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Millimeter waves are actually the 'New Frontier' in wireless
>> transmission at higher frequencies and will serve as the basis for 5G
>> mobile networks and even the Internet of Things.
>> I also believe that the solution is architectonic in nature.
>> Could you further explain how directed microwave links would solve
>> the problem? Ted Rappaport (MIT) explained that you could use higher
>> frequencies with very short cells to provide connectivity in urban
>> environments because antenna gain would compensate for path and
>> oxygen attenuation. But microwaves are limited to line of sight
>> transmission and signal loss is inevitable in almost half of the time
>> in the presence of humidity, trees, hills, etc.
>> What is symmetric transport and how would this be solved if every
>> client acted as a server?
>> How would you eliminate 'all types of instances' to transport all
>> types of content (text, graphic, speech)?
>> Explain geo-routing (is it the same thing as geocast/geolocation
>> protocol) being currently developed by/at the IETF?
>> When you refer to the regional network of regional centers and the
>> global network of regional centers, are you referring to the Super
>> IANA Jefsey was referring to? Are you aligned with Louis Pouzin's
>> view of VGNs?
>> I believe we can solve Internet Governance through a better
>> understanding of the technology of the Internet.
>> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> To: discuss at 1net.org
>> Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2014 8:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> Best regards,
> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de
> avast! Antivirus está activa.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss