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

Thu May 22 22:51:01 UTC 2014

Willi,

the proposal, as soon as you start developing it in more detail and
investigating its scalability, leads to at least the same need for
additional layers of indirection and abstraction as the one it aims ro
replace; that is true also in the new explanation provided.

The same happens with the "governance" layers once you sketch out the
numbers and types of agreements needed, the need for mathematical "onto"
univocal resolution of identifiers across indirection layers, and the
possibility of controversy. Further, its scalability doesn't look any
promising.

At any rate, a more quantitative technical document and the results of a
mock-up laboratory test would illuminate the perceived advantages. Have any
of either been done?

Alejandro Pisanty

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:56 PM, willi uebelherr
<willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> thanks for your answer and that you do not feel personally attacked. It is
> not my interest.
>
> > For instance, in the old days, when you moved house, you had to change
> > your phone number.  This meant that if 100 people knew your phone
> > number, you had to tell 100 people the new number.
>
> But this is very simple. You change the DNS entry for your home-address.
> Then all people have your new IP-address. And if you are not able to do it,
> you can ask friends or neighbors to do it for you.
>
> And like in our old post systems you create a order for the forwarding to
> your new home-address in combination with a message to the sender to inform
> for the new address.
>
> "It still requires agreements between different geographic areas. It still
> requires governance of the radio waves that you're planning to use."
>
> Agreements, yes. Based on the same intentions and interests for transport
> of data packets. Based on the using of the same IP header structure. Based
> on regional activity for the interconnection of regional centers. But
> "Governance"? One or more institutions or organisations that organize it as
> a representative instance? No.
>
> "It still requires dispute resolution if two diffrent people are stepping
> on the same location (because, for instance, two ISPs are in racks next to
> each other in the same data centre -- i.e. below the resolution of GPS)."
>
> No. In my last answer to you from 17.05.2014 you see the resolution for
> the 64 bit global address part. But what have this to do with the
> GPS-system?
>
> And ISP's? We never use it. We organize the interconnection of the local
> networks self. Only for the intercontinental connection we need a deeper
> cooperation with the people in the other parts of our world. Like the
> people in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
>
> I know, that also many people in the existing "Governance" institutions
> want to help in the process of creation of a realy free internet system.
> And i hope we find ways to distribute this discussion to all parts of our
> world and to connect to all people in our world with the same interests and
> intentions.
>
> many greetings, willi
> Jinotepe, Nicaragua
>
>
> Am 22/05/2014 09:28, schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:28:05PM -0600, willi uebelherr wrote:
>>
>>> Never i found in any answer a realy stable argumentation, that
>>> "geographically local" is impossible.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it isn't impossible.  That's how the original phone networks
>> worked.  The problem is (to use the technical term ;-) it sucks.
>>
>> For instance, in the old days, when you moved house, you had to change
>> your phone number.  This meant that if 100 people knew your phone
>> number, you had to tell 100 people the new number.
>>
>> Today if I move my services from one data centre to another, I don't
>> have to do anything.  I withdraw the route in one location and
>> announce it in another, but all the addressing and naming and
>> everything remains exactly the same.  If my address were dependent on
>> my physical location, then all my services would need to be updated.
>> This is a major pain in the neck for no benefit of any kind that I can
>> see.  Why would anyone want to do that?
>>
>>  _my_ communication happens with colleagues at the IETF, and they're
>>>> not in any meaningful sense "local" to me.  In my company (which is
>>>> small -- only 300ish people) we have offices on both coasts of the US,
>>>> in the UK, and in Australia; I have people who report to me working
>>>>
>>> >from Spain and Canada.  I interact at least as much with them as I do
>>>
>>>> anyone living in the same town as I.  I think your premise is false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you are a single person and are working for continuation of this
>>> "Governance" structure.
>>>
>>
>> I assure you that my interest in maintaining this "Governance"
>> discussion is so small as to be in the noise.  I work on the
>> technology of the Internet -- the one we actually have deployed, and
>> that is working for many millions of people, not some mythical beast
>> that requires rebuilding the entire network from scratch for no
>> apparent benefit.  These governance discussions are, I think, a
>> necessary evil, not a good thing.
>>
>> Moreover, you are simply pretending that your geographic-based network
>> requires no governance.  It still requires agreements between
>> different geographic areas.  It still requires governance of the radio
>> waves that you're planning to use.  It still requires dispute
>> resolution if two diffrent people are stepping on the same location
>> (because, for instance, two ISPs are in racks next to each other in
>> the same data centre -- i.e. below the resolution of GPS).  And so on.
>>
>>  Following of that you have never any
>>> interest for a free and libre communication system. because with
>>> that you need to search a new job. Maybe.
>>>
>>
>> That is an _ad hominem_, and nothing more.  Please address my
>> argument: at least as much of my communication is with people outside
>> my immediate geographic location as within it.  Your presumption that
>> most communication is contained in a geographic area is false in at
>> least some cases, and as near as I can tell that has been one of the
>> glorious advantages of the Internet: that commonality of interests
>> even among tiny minorities in any geographic locale can all come
>> together online and turn into a much larger community.  You seem to
>> want to wave that away.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>>
> ---
> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast!
> Antivirus está activa.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140522/fce30a34/attachment.html>