[e2e] intelligent network design

Jon Crowcroft Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Thu Dec 1 12:00:39 PST 2005

its different from charging (e.g. proof-of-work schemes like penny black) because
1/ the money does NOT go to the receiver
2/ the money _only_ goes if the participants fail to meet metcalfe's law.
(i.e. fail to increase the value of the net)

so the point is that it is a _tax_ on network stupidity.

the footnote in the message actually contains clues about a way you really might implement
the metcalfe control


p.s. for those of you from Kansas, let me assure you:

1/ of course, the network hasn't evolved, it was the product of intelligent design
and I am just proposing continuing that tradition (perhaps if you like, i want to play god
with IP)

2/ luckily I dont do routing (and this is end2end) or I might have to talk about being touched
by the noodly tendrils of the flying spaghetti BGP code monster

In missive <20051201174219.GF24647 at hut.isi.edu>, Ted Faber typed:

 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 >>Content-Disposition: inline
 >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 >>On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:13:35PM +0000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
 >>> if you want to send a packet to my computer, or you want to an e-mail
 >>> to my mail box, first of all you must send an xmas present to be held
 >>> in escrow for later
 >>> when i hear that the xmas present is safe somewhere in the north pole,
 >>> then you will get notification of an address you can reach me at.
 >>> If I then get a messaage that is interesting, useful or entertaining,
 >>> the present will remain in escrow. If I (where I=3Danyrecipient)
 >>> deem the message to be dangerous, boring, or dull, then I will inform
 >>> santa to deliver the present to a needy person (of santa's choosing).
 >>I'm assuming that by "a needy person" you mean "the recepient."  It's
 >>kind of a morally sticky position to put a receipent in for their
 >>entertainment to literally be blocking charity from reaching needy
 >>people.  (It might encourage more people to adopt my nephew's position
 >>that "everything is boring but PlayStation."   Being charitable with
 >>other's money is pretty easy.) It's an interesting idea, but incentives
 >>are easier to grok when they're direct.
 >>(A more facetious response might have included the complexities of
 >>people who don't celebrate Christmas, have a religious or moral problem
 >>with charity, etc.  Fortunately, this is a completely serious message.)
 >>The first place I heard of this idea (using the simpler, direct
 >>incentives) was in Heinlein's _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_, though
 >>there may be earlier references.  In _Cat_ ringing the main character's
 >>doorbell requires a $20 deposit for which the ringer gets a minute of
 >>time.  The $20 is (obviously) refundable at the owner's discretion.
 >>It's the difference between "sender pays" and "sender pays *me*."
 >>As far as shipping AIDS drugs out, especially today, I'm in favor.
 >>Ted Faber
 >>http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.=
 >>Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#=
 >>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 >>Content-Disposition: inline
 >>Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD)
 >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the end2end-interest mailing list