[e2e] Discrete IP - retake

Pars Mutaf pars.mutaf at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 05:10:39 PDT 2012


Hi Jon,

I at last solved the puzzle and understood the real meaning of your
message:

You are basically telling to me to go to a conference or journal. :-)

No problem but we cannot discuss it here publicly? I am not interested in
author-based research. All these people do research but they never discuss
publicly.
http://www.content-based-science.org/

The first question that we need to answer is what we want, before proposing
solutions.
I argue that we need a dirty and happy Internet where everybody do what
they wish.
All these folks should be able to implement what they wish and be reachable
to others.

All of them are correct.

Thanks

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Jon Crowcroft
<Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:

> as i said, read the paper we published in sigcomm future network
> architectures nearly 10 years ago
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~andy/papers/plutarch-fdna.pdf
>
> no one in the IETF says you can't run multiple versions of IP
> and build interworking points that copy payloads , if you so wish -
> actually, there's a lot of this going on in middleboxes one way and another
> already
>
> you need to propose how you find the right place to do the translation of
> headers - this requires some sort of overlay control plane and might ential
> the use of a new overlay meta-addressing system or make  use of name
> spaces as in IPNL or related work on I^3
> http://128.232.0.20/teaching/0910/R02/papers/ipnl.pdf
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/166.pdf
>
>
> many of the ways IPv4/IPv6 interworking have also tackled this, not just
> using tunnels or tunnel brokers, but lots of other techniques
>
> there are LOTS and LOTS of papers in the future internet research
> programmes around the world on how to do this ad solve other practical
> problems - see work in the IETF on ILNP for example
> http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
>
> e2e is just one discussion place - the future internet research programmes
> have moved a long way beyond the necessary and insufficienct business of
> deploying IPv6 as fast and as widely as possible, and on to tackling a
> bunch of new problems (Information centric networking, for example, or
> massive scale internet of things and sensors etc etc)
>
> communities of interest for that include conferences such as ACM Sigcomm
> and Usenix NSDI and IEEE Infocom and many others...
>
> ideas like XIA (see recent FIA report
>
> http://www.nets-fia.net/Meetings/May11/May%202011%20meeting%20report%203-1.pdf
> amongst oterhs) go way beyond identifiers for end points and have entire
> DAGs coded in packets (efficiently)
>
> there's so much exciting new stuff out there....
>
>
> on the other hand, practical barriers to deploying lots of different stuff
> exist, not just in the slowness/ossified internet core IPv4 routers, but in
> the many weird boxes nearer the edges - see the Trilogy project
> folks' paper on
> How Hard Can It Be? Designing and Implementing a Deployable Multipath TCP
> at
> https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi12/tech-schedule/technical-sessions
>
> and also in same conference session, the cunning tricks the Yale folks had
> to empoy to get small changes into TCP:
> Fitting Square Pegs Through Round Pipes: Unordered Delivery Wire-Compatible
> with TCP and TLS
>
> In missive <CACQuieYAU+O1bXYdM+ZJsknXE=
> 8wPgzftOxKJ73Mshxu2Dtc6A at mail.gmail.com>, Par
> s Mutaf typed:
>
>  >>--047d7b4140c626654d04c9f67a1c
>  >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>  >>
>  >>Off-list messages that I received indicate to me that I was not taken
>  >>seriously
>  >>because I am too modest. I was called a troll and hobbyist. I have in
> fact
>  >>a PhD in
>  >>computer science from INRIA, France. I am now an asst prof. in Turkey.
>  >>But I let go my PhD title because my thinking evolved beyond your
>  >>imagination ;-).
>  >>Check and support my project (off-list please this is off-topic):
>  >>
>  >>http://www.content-based-science.org/
>  >>
>  >>What is important is the content. Not the name.
>  >>
>  >>Now back to our topic. IPng was clearly designed the wrong way. Now read
>  >>the
>  >>message again, this is the result of 15 years thinking:
>  >>-----
>  >>
>  >>Dear colleagues,
>  >>
>  >>I believe that the next step in IP's evolution would not be IPv6. It
> would
>  >>be "Discrete IP" allowing any IP version.
>  >>I concluded that Discrete IP better respects the end-to-end principles
>  >>therefore it is economically more viable.
>  >>
>  >>***Do not touch the existing Internet, do not assume that IPv6 is the
> end of
>  >>centuries of research.***
>  >>
>  >>-I propose that we do not touch the core Internet, i.e. enforce the
>  >>modification of all Internet routers, this is what IPv6 does.
>  >>-People should be free to choose the IP version that they wish because
>  >>deciding for others is a technology blocker. IETF designs IPv6, IETF
> blocks
>  >>its development. Because IETF does not give freedom of choice. This is
> not
>  >>normal. Some entities may use IPv6 others IPv4 yet others IPv7 for
> unknown
>  >>reasons. Everybody may agree on IPv6, or not. We do not know. We do not
>  >>have to.
>  >>-To give such freedom of choice, we need to change the end-nodes, for
>  >>example TCP.
>  >>-This is the end-to-end principle.
>  >>
>  >>Here is a picture (in this picture we have a network of Internets
> running
>  >>random IP versions):
>  >>
> http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/images/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg
>  >>The question is:
>  >>***Would this be the ideal for the Internet? Please discuss this
> question
>  >>without entering in design challenges.***
>  >>
>  >>For more information, see my unpublished paper:
>  >>
>  >>http://www.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP
>  >>
>  >>Cheers,
>  >>Pars
>  >>
>  >>--
>  >>http://www.content-based-science.org
>  >>
>  >>--047d7b4140c626654d04c9f67a1c
>  >>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>  >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>  >>
>  >>Off-list messages that I received indicate to me that I was not taken
> serio=
>  >>usly<br>because I am too modest. I was called a troll and hobbyist. I
> have =
>  >>in fact a PhD in <br>computer science from INRIA, France. I am now an
> asst =
>  >>prof. in Turkey. <br>
>  >>But I let go my PhD title because my thinking evolved beyond your
> imaginati=
>  >>on ;-). <br>Check and support my project (off-list please this is
> off-topic=
>  >>):<br><br><a href=3D"http://www.content-based-science.org/">
> http://www.cont=
>  >>ent-based-science.org/</a><br>
>  >><br>What is important is the content. Not the name.<br><br>Now back to
> our =
>  >>topic. IPng was clearly designed the wrong way. Now read the
> <br>message ag=
>  >>ain, this is the result of 15 years thinking:<br>-----<br><br>Dear
> colleagu=
>  >>es,<br>
>  >><br>I believe that the next step in IP&#39;s evolution would not be
> IPv6. I=
>  >>t would<br>be &quot;Discrete IP&quot; allowing any IP version.<br>I
> conclud=
>  >>ed that Discrete IP better respects the end-to-end
> principles<br>therefore =
>  >>it is economically more viable.<br>
>  >><br>***Do not touch the existing Internet, do not assume that IPv6 is
> the e=
>  >>nd of<br>centuries of research.***<br><br>-I propose that we do not
> touch t=
>  >>he core Internet, i.e. enforce the<br>modification of all Internet
> routers,=
>  >> this is what IPv6 does.<br>
>  >>-People should be free to choose the IP version that they wish
> because<br>d=
>  >>eciding for others is a technology blocker. IETF designs IPv6, IETF
> blocks<=
>  >>br>its development. Because IETF does not give freedom of choice. This
> is n=
>  >>ot<br>
>  >>normal. Some entities may use IPv6 others IPv4 yet others IPv7 for
> unknown<=
>  >>br>reasons. Everybody may agree on IPv6, or not. We do not know. We do
> not<=
>  >>br>have to.<br>-To give such freedom of choice, we need to change the
> end-n=
>  >>odes, for<br>
>  >>example TCP.<br>-This is the end-to-end principle.<br><br>Here is a
> picture=
>  >> (in this picture we have a network of Internets running<br>random IP
> versi=
>  >>ons):<br><a href=3D"
> http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/image=
>  >>s/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg">
> http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/image=
>  >>s/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg</a><br>
>  >>The question is:<br>***Would this be the ideal for the Internet? Please
> dis=
>  >>cuss this question<br>without entering in design
> challenges.***<br><br>For =
>  >>more information, see my unpublished paper:<br><br><a href=3D"
> http://www.sc=
>  >>ribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP">
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Dis=
>  >>crete-IP</a><br>
>  >><br>Cheers,<br>Pars<br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><a href=3D"
> http://www.conte=
>  >>nt-based-science.org" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.content-based-science.or=
>  >>g</a><br><br>
>  >>
>  >>--047d7b4140c626654d04c9f67a1c--
>
>  cheers
>
>    jon
>
>


-- 
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120918/dbdb4e8e/attachment.html


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list