[discuss] The decentralization of IP addresses
willi.uebelherr at riseup.net
Mon Nov 30 23:37:05 UTC 2015
My dear Jefsey,
i am so thankful for your answer. Independent of our differences, always
you answer in a very constructive form. I read this RFC's. Yes, a very
open space we find there. And i do not understand, why Brian Carpenter,
the editor of the RFC 1958, attacked me so strong on the 1net.org list.
You act like Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. We have differences, but we search
the truth, the "simplicity" in the internet. And this is my experience
in my life. People with a strong base in her knowledge are always able
to reflect different opinions and methods. I thank also very much
Jean-Christophe Nothias for his reflection of this discussion.
I will you and all open friends in this lists explain a little bit, why
i forced this discussion from May 2014 until today. And i will continue
this discussion later.
Since 5 years i live in Latin America. 2 years in Venezuela. Then 3
years i travel in latin America from Mexico to Chile/Argentina. Only
Uruguay and Paraguay i don't visit. Therefore, i know the reality in
Latin America. My experience correlate directly with 2 persons:
Andre Gunder Frank:
"Latin America, the development of underdevelopment".
"The underdevelopment is not a step to development. The underdevelopment
is a result of the development of others".
Now, i come back to Venezuela 4 weeks before. Friends invited me to come
to Coro in Falcon in the North of Venezuela. The situation is the same
like 3 years ago. But we have an important change: The destruction of
the illusion of stability based on the extractivism. The people now
understand, that they have to change his way, if they want to have a future.
We act on the base of the visionary part of Señor Hugo Chavez. On the 3
- Independencia o Nada
- Poder Popular o Nada
- Comunas o Nada
"o Nada" means "or Nothing". The independence is the base in this 3-pole.
Because the independence rests always in the people, in the persons, our
focus is the support for the people local to unfold her capacity in the
theoretical and practical requirements.
The political independence in principle is based on the independence in
the economy. And the economy is based on the technical infrastructures
and the independence in the technology. And because we speak about
Venezuela, a network of distributed local communities, every form of
independence is based on the local independence for this. This is the
concept of Comunas, based on the Paris Comune and our history.
The concrete entrypoint for us is the open and free internet for the
free access to free knowledge and communication. We use it for all forms
of telecommunication: page access, audio and video streaming. The result
is an unique transportsystem for digital data for all types of
information structures. The transport is organized in pakets without any
"virtual connection". We do not need the TCP protocol. We connect
directly to Louis Pouzin.
Clear, in this time with analog systems and many different
specification, the paket transfer of digital data with error checking
was not possible. With mechanical relais and analog amplifiers you never
can do this. I understand. And Vint Cerf, i think, understand it also.
But what situation we have here? The telecommunication system is totally
controlled from external private companies. Internal, the private and
state companies are only departments of the external groups. Never you
can find a University in Latin America, where the students can study.
And never you find an environment to study the basics for
telecommunication, computer architecture, material physic for the
digital and analog moduls. You find consumer temples, training centers
for using and service (exchange of parts). No more.
The biggest blockades for the development comes from inside. The state.
The organisation of Egoism and Parasitism. Clear, all state construction
on our planet are parasitic. They use the biggest part of the ressources
and create nothing. Only stupidness and destruction. And all state
institution work for the rich private groups and never for the people.
We start here with the internet. It is the most important instrument for
the development of our independence. The development of our technical
infrastructure and the independence in the technology. The internet is
the space for a big challenge: The development, construction and
fabrication of the technical components. And immediatly, we come to all
spheres and technical requirements in our life. But with this base of
technical infrastructures for the internet we have the bases in all
Here in Falcon, the second step is the stability of the water systems.
And we come directly to the desalination of ocean water. And also for
that we need the global cooperation in the free technology. The
reforestration of all dry regions on our planet is for me the second
main task for the people. The first is the dissolving of all military
and paramilitary structures and infrastructures.
The free technology is free for use and participate for all people on
our planet. And we have a clear base: "global thinking, local doing" and
"knowledge is always world heritage". We never accept any form of
private ownership of common ressources. And we never use it. We ignore it.
This is the background, why we can start with a radical reflection on
the existing systems. Our focus is the telecommunication, the
communication over geografical and time distances. Therefore, we can
look for, what we need. Maybe, therefore so many people in the IGF lists
don't understand all this. They live in a virtual space, based on the
international slavery systems, and not in the reality. And mostly, they
don't know what is going on in the hardware.
I thank you and our friends very much for your time, for your patience.
I hope, in the next time, we can start in the space of our global free
technology network. We have to end the dogmatic with the wave and dipol
theories for energy transmission, We have to go from Heinrich Hertz to
Niclas Tesla and Werner Heisenberg. We have to find the way for high
speed data transport based on low energy transmission. I don't like this
stupid idea of glas and plastic fibre cable. Because we have to connect
all local networks in the communities with her neighbors, the using of
cable is a big nonsense.
You see, we don't discuss the higher levels of protocols. We start on
the base. And free spoken: The OSI model is nonsense. In our transport
system, we speak about Tb-lines and not Kb, Mb or Gb-lines. And for the
router, we need embedded control with passive cooling. Furnace in the
refrigerator we don't need. Based on the geografical position the
routing is very simple. And we have no administration of numbers.
Dear Jefsey, we are always open for this discussion in any form. I like
very much the exchange of opinion and ideas with people with different
thinking. And i hope, that any time we can create the "World Internet
Forum". An environment, where the people on our planet can interact
based on equality and cooperation for our common needs.
many greetings, willi
Am 29/11/2015 um 02:49 a.m. schrieb Jefsey:
>> At 18:23 28/11/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>>> many thanks for your reference. For your constructive participation
>>> in this discussion.
>> At 20:36 28/11/2015, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Your texts are impossible to understand, and the little that is
>> understandable is hopelessly confused. Your proposal is "not even
>> false" (by which I mean it is not possible to make sense of it, and
>> then to determine if it's true or false.)
> This being said, having been in charge for several years (1982/1986)
> of the global DNIC based X.121 addressing implementation, I supported
> 10 years ago the ITU _investigation_ (it was not a proposition).
> Why? Because we will necessarily move into a more open world once the
> 1986-2013 "status-quo" culture has progressively unfrozen through
> experimentation and (now technically correct) "permissionless innovation".
> The difference between the "ITU/RIRs" period and the post ICANN
> leadership evolution should be the multiplication of registries
> (continents, nations, RFC 6852 global communities, ISO/IEC 11179,
> etc.) and types of numbering plans.
> The same as 15 years ago they documented why new TLDs would spoil the
> nets. At that time no one considered possibilities such as SixXS, nor
> an RFC 6852 pleading for the technology to be driven by markets
> economics, nor the IETF to consensually accepting to be bound to the
> ICANN "global community" and subject to NTIA review.
> Now, I suggest you at least read two RFCs:
> 1. RFC 1958 "architectural principles of the Internet". Its first
> section is named "Constat change". It starts stating: " In searching
> for Internet architectural principles, we must remember that technical
> change is continuous in the information technology industry. The
> Internet reflects this. ... Principles that seemed inviolable a few
> years ago are deprecated today. Principles that seem sacred today will
> be deprecated tomorrow. The principle of constant change is perhaps
> the only principle of the Internet that should survive indefinitely."
> 2. RFC 3439 states " The implication for carrier IP networks then, is
> that to be successful we must drive our architectures and designs
> toward the simplest possible solutions."
Am 29/11/2015 um 01:29 p.m. schrieb Jean-Christophe Nothias:
> Dear lists,
> A view among others.
> I note that this topic of 'the decentralization of IP addresses',
even though a few have mocked the questioner and the question, is
raising some debate. I was asking myself why do we suddenly have some
activity as regards to Willy's wishes and questioning?
> Let us see what this thread has to say so far:
> - Suresh very briefly summarized Willy's views by calling for an end
to confusion between TCP/IP and the Postal service. A sarcasm to the
least. Too bad, Suresh doesn't mention the fact that ITU is handling a
non geographical space of futurist and strategic importance i.e. the
Space, and its many satellites - another technology inherited from the
Telegraph century?! ITU the organization helping dummies inhabiting the
atmosphere to communicate with us, the grounded.
> - David gave some more detailed thoughts about "understanding names
and numbers". Saying that names are abstractions is fine, but short of
clarity; writing that 'systems geographically based involve a great deal
of governance' is also confusing. It is not clear if David meant that
today IPs are living their life with no governance at all, or if a
different model for handling IPs would be such a burden on economic or
technological grounds. Could David provide an analysis comparing the two
systems with pro and cons, data and figures? David recommended to ask
ITU for feedbacks on regional and national governance. Another taste for
sarcasm it seems. Acknowledging that Willy's ideas were raising 'lot of
questions', David noted that 'many of us would disagree with quite a few
of Willy's assumptions as both misguided in their intent, and based on
some fairly basic misunderstandings'. That makes a lot of assumptions
for David to counter Willy's assumptions.
> - Suresh joined again to highlight David's mention of ITU: 'such
proposals have been floating around ITU circles for a great many years".
Probably another terrible plot by the villains in Geneva!
> - Cedric asked: '...would it not be premature to assume other models
cannot exist, and that managing an address space (or certification such
as PKI) always has to require any central or hierarchical co-ordination?'
> - Chantal provided a link to Louis's work, getting us back to the
origins and basics of transmitting data in a network of networks. Still
> - Paul provided a reference - not mentioning that it was a link to a
post he wrote - challenging ITU's work about IPs; to no one's surprise
he advocated against it or any attempt to change the system. The post is
very long but it doesn't necessarily mean that Paul is right. Paul
emphasized the absence of geography for IPs, even though the network of
networks is made of networks geographically established in national
boundaries and under national jurisdictions, something that hasn't
destroyed the idea of INTER-connected NETworks - to the contrary. Maybe
I should simply write that the Internet is an international network of
national networks, therefore with a lot of geographic national bounds
and boundaries. When Paul concludes his blog he notes: 'The structure of
today's Internet is a geography of independent networks around the
world' - he omits to indicate the national specification and very nature
of these networks - 'with transparent borders allowing traffic to flow
freely between any pair of locations'. Such narrative should sounds like
poetry to many techos, - and to me as well - and its allegoric style
should not forbid us to challenge what seems to be well established (see
jfc's email for that). Indeed there are many ways to flow freely between
any pair of locations" wIth or without the current DNS, or within the
current DNS. Here again a lot of assumptions.
> - By then Nick argued that they were other profound issues
'threatening the network', and therefore, we should all stop discussing
Willy's question and views. Obviously Nick's comment does not exactly
bring substance to the thread. On a personal note, I am sure everyone
on these lists is quite able to decide whether or not to enter any
debate, to their best judgement. Calling for an end to a debate (which
is having a few guns exchanging shots) is relatively surprising for
someone from the business industry so prompt to call for protection of
freedom of expression, human rights, and who has seen himself as the
next ICANN's CEO with some self confidence. (I know this a bad habit
among self-(s)elected folks). By the way, how would you label folks
calling for stopping debating? Democrats, yes that must the right word.
> - 'srs' came in with an interesting IP technologist's quote: 'IP
addresses, though randomly allocated, could easily be listed on a per
country basis by the Agencies. Existing filtering system does this with
zero need to reallocate anything...'
> - Stéphane who's used to demonstrate his googling of RFCs had this to
ask to the lists: "When are we too polite?" His answer was compelling:
his message was saying something like be gross and mean. Stéphane didn't
give any RFC number to support his contra 'too polite' stance.
> - Barry would call his great sense of humor to keep the debate open,
ironically calling for a multistakeholder bottom-up trick to solve the
issue. Just need to read Barry once to make sure you have respect for
> - Lee was happy with Stéphane's contra 'too polite' stance and used a
'+1'. Both must be very upset with the question.
> - Lately, 'jfc' would somehow support Stéphane's critic of Willy's
clarity, but would be kind enough to clearly support what he sees as a
decent ITU investigation. 'jfc' provided two excellent RFC references to
support his support.
> I see a couple of interesting points being made here.
> First, could people provide a link to ITU investigation, and a link
to a source describing the current governance for IPs. At least for
those who are not so acquainted.
> Second, I wonder why Willy and his question create such a fuss. Many
hypothesis. One seems to be the role of the 'decentralizing' idea in the
questioning. In fact, most pro status quo folks (aligned with
multistakeholderists) are professing an already decentralized Internet.
'Therefore how could we decentralize an already decentralized system?',
they seem to ask. According to them, this doesn't make sense, and must
be defeated as pure non sense. So maybe the question is some sort of
major embarras de principe. Maybe then the basic solution is to kill the
question for it would be insane, confusing, impossible, unreadable, part
of another ITU temptation to grab power - please feel free to be
unpolite - ... The question seems unbearable. When it is not, at least
on technical and public policy grounds. But of course, there are other
> Third, challenging the Internet architecture seems to be a red line,
something that no multistakeholder/status quo champion could ever
discuss, debate, think of. They should think twice. And not because of
the ITU, but because of the US obstructive stance, and because
technology calls for innovation and disruption. (Thanks to jfc for the
RFCs on this). IPs can obviously be distributed on a national basis -
maybe not the best system - but that is doable. Of course, an NGO
located in one of these evil, rogues or villain states will put its
digital content behind IPs located out of their unfriendly homeland.
> Here, we are talking Internet architecture, the political and
societal impacts it has, and the rules it obeys to, and not just its
beauty code. Of course, we have many pending Internet governance issues,
something that will be demonstrated sometime in NY in December, but
let's stop talking about 'digital Human Rights' for a sec. (Alec Ross
once said to me that they didn't exist, as they were invented to serve a
greater purpose: the US interests)
> There is an IP/root-zone/DNS governing model behind the current
status quo. For the time being, it leads us to IETF/IAB for the most
part, and to RFCs for the historic part. We all know that IANA's
transfer is a kind of écran de fumée when the real power lies beyond it.
Giving IANA from ICANN under NTIA/DoC/USG to ICANN without NTIA/DoC/USG
won't make a difference. A true decentralization (in terms of
coordination) would create a new set of governance, not just bring one
to a space that used to live without one centralized governing set of
rules. I am convinced that technology would be happy to adapt, as a
neutral thing - it loves to be challenged anyway. Some will even argue
that IANA and ICANN are not critical resources when it comes to Internet
architecture. I tend to agree, as ICANN/IANA are valets to the
architects, or guardian of the current DNS aspect of the architecture.
The network of networks is fragmented by nature, but it is/looks a
coherent and fluid space - thanks to Louis and followers for making this
possible. As regards to the current DNS, things could be set otherwise,
still coherent and fluid, two qualities that are not enough for us who
ask for more social justice, democratic regulation, transparency...
Tomorrow we could have a multi-rooted Internet. We (the users as the
real Internet community) would simply have different concierges: each
user would be offered a choice at any time to chose his/her concierge
(Emilio Iccano, Pedro Oproot, Marcello NameSpace, Willy Uncleario...).
Browsers would allow users to chose which root concierge they want to
use at anytime. Of course, concierge with special connection to mass
surveillance paranoids might lose the favor of the public. If the NSA
would catch a few nihilists, that would greatly help to justify the
billion they cost to the US taxpayer. Soon some geeks/startups/companies
will make profits out of such ideas. We don't need ICANN to live and
navigate the Internet. ICANN is only one out of many solutions. ICANN's
power comes from the fact that there is promiscuity and connivence
between the commercial and security US players. ICANN has a monopolistic
nature because some commercial giants, and security folks need it. Of
course, ICANN et al claim that any competitor would disrupt and fragment
the Internet. Which is of course a fairytale. Maybe we shouldn't bother
as over the next decade some geeks will ruin the DNS as we know it.
> The ones telling us that we need to fight any attempt to broke what
works so well, simply omit to tell us that the Internet architecture can
be different and more consistent with all of what many of us are
advocating here, with more responsibility, with more competition, more
innovation, more distributive power at local and community level, with
greater respect of our Rights. The overall vision of an Internet being
un-fragmented is propagated by the ones who wish to protect giants and
tyrants's sovereignty on markets and people. The digital economic war
now raging over the planet will only drive to the dismantlement of the
existing fortress, de facto monopole, tyranny of a few. The US policy,
strictly applied by his pet followers (Sweden, UK, Japan, Canada, and
the commonwealth - love this name), is there to preserve its interests.
> Decentralization is needed (a real one) in a revised global legal
framework to protect it, and the people's rights and their own
conception of what are the new Commons. Such a legal framework, an
international law would hold part of it as far as governments are
concerned, would distribute more responsibility, competition, better
protect rights, and it would also drive economic wealth in a more
distributed way, not just to the big players imposing their rules (not
to confuse with regulation). Since it exists, Google has greatly
contributed to kill pluralism in the media landscape. Who cares? Thanks
to its financial torque, it has bought for itself intellectual rights to
part of the human legacy in health, literature, science... Who cares?
The game is to capture audiences, one way or another, as famously and
appropriately put by Susan Crawford. This means more centralization,
more concentration. This is not what the founders of Internet dreamt of
- I am referring to the academic folks who invented it, with no
multistakeholder process behind them, and before the USG took control in
> Instead the US should start setting a competitive digital world with
more root concierges (for more TLDs). That would demonstrate and protect
a diversity and plurality of languages, culture, traditions, media,
markets, still under interoperable norms and regulations (sorry I could
not avoid to use that ugly word). A multi-rooted Internet would offer
more search engines, neutral and less commercially biased ones. A
multi-rooted approach would also be complementary to a multipolar, fluid
and decentralized Internet. A multi-rooted approach would help achieve
an alternative Internet with an immediate more balanced governance, with
interoperability and competitive approaches, with no tyrants to dominate
others, in the interest of users around the planet. IPs are IPS, and
content are located at IPs. So asking to different concierge would
fragment nothing, except the current monopoles. The surveillance and
commercial ones. Something we would love the US to be the champions of.
Something for a New Frontiers president. (Someone is telling me that the
guy exists but that he was assassinated by his fellow countrymen - the
country of the Free with the record number of assassinated presidents).
So let's wait for the next New Frontiers president to emerge. In the US,
or anywhere else. Or let's use what we already have at hand.
> So indeed, it seems that behind the "decentralization of", there is a
lot to be concerned with.
> The decentralization question is helping to deconstruct the fairytale
of a decentralized and ungovernable Internet that we have been given for
granted over the last 17 years since 1998.
More information about the discuss