[e2e] Discrete IP - retake

Pars Mutaf pars.mutaf at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 06:55:08 PDT 2012


On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jon Crowcroft
<Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:

> I'm not saying you need to go to a conference or journal, except from the
> point of view of finding out what else is going on (which is a lot)
>
> note a lot of the papers these people write are not just "academic" - the
> pointers I have are to groups who work with industry - for example, with
> ISPs, router vendors, cloud service providers, and the papers I prefer to
> mention are not just "paper" studies or simulations, but involve real code
> (just like the IETF, and just like vendors)
>
> the trilogy project is probabl a good example of how to work with a bunch
> of different types of groups, and has delivered work into the IETF which
> could see real deployment (first off in mobile devices and data centers,
> then more widely spread) - its also a great example of how much "heavy
> lifting" you have to do to get from a Great Idea, to getting a lot of
> people on your side and trying things out, and doing all the
> implementation, testing, deployment, debugging, re-deployment etc etc
>
>
Yes. That's what I am doing in my way. I want to understand first what we
want exactly. I don't want to find out this alone in my office. The work is
more
important than my name.

Is there a real need for more IP space in the first place for example?
NATs are working well. Why optimizing NAT traversal is not a better
solution
until someone gets a better idea 50 years later, etc.



> IPv6 is/was, in my view, another example of such a massive effort and
> although it is flawed (it was the result of a compromise between two better
> proposals which were each potentially much easier to deploy, but polarised
> people, and the solution was one of (in my opinion) the great failings of
> the IETF when it agreed to combine them (a committee type decision) rather
> than just do both and see which got out most. (the two, if you want ancient
> history, were Steve's IP and Paul's IP (actually, those aren't their real
> names, but that's who they came from) - the simple internet protocol had 64
> bit addresses and everything else prety miuch the same - PIP had FTIFs
> which afforded ultrafast switching and really scalable source routing...
>
> oh well....luckly we didn't pick CLNP+NSAP (which nearly happened)
>
>

Thanks, I wasn't there but I think they were just hyperactive. They did not
even
think about calming down and allowing others do to research on IP. (their
goal is
to use IPv6 on *everything*)



> In missive <
> CACQuieayXDJ2A+BPS009ZN04nz6iy7pYzPBmv+_wtjCqYzFnVA at mail.gmail.com>, Par
> s Mutaf typed:
>
>  >>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
>  >>
>  >>--047d7bae44c8472c4304c9f8c72f
>  >>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>  >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>  >>
>  >>Hi Jon, <br><br>I at last solved the puzzle and understood the real
> meaning=
>  >> of your message: <br><br>You are basically telling to me to go to a
> confer=
>  >>ence or journal. :-)<br><br>No problem but we cannot discuss it here
> public=
>  >>ly? I am not interested in <br>
>  >>author-based research. All these people do research but they never
> discuss =
>  >>publicly. <br><a href=3D"http://www.content-based-science.org/">
> http://www.=
>  >>content-based-science.org/</a><br><br>The first question that we need
> to an=
>  >>swer is what we want, before proposing solutions.<br>
>  >>I argue that we need a dirty and happy Internet where everybody do what
> the=
>  >>y wish. <br>All these folks should be able to implement what they wish
> and =
>  >>be reachable to others. <br><br>All of them are correct.
> <br><br>Thanks<br>
>  >><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Jon
> Crowcro=
>  >>ft <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk"
> targ=
>  >>et=3D"_blank">Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span>
> wrote:<br><blockquo=
>  >>te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
> #ccc so=
>  >>lid;padding-left:1ex">
>  >>as i said, read the paper we published in sigcomm future network<br>
>  >>architectures nearly 10 years ago<br>
>  >><a href=3D"http://www.cs.ubc.ca/%7Eandy/papers/plutarch-fdna.pdf"
> target=3D=
>  >>"_blank">http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~andy/papers/plutarch-fdna.pdf</a><br>
>  >><br>
>  >>no one in the IETF says you can&#39;t run multiple versions of IP<br>
>  >>and build interworking points that copy payloads , if you so wish -<br>
>  >>actually, there&#39;s a lot of this going on in middleboxes one way and
> ano=
>  >>ther<br>
>  >>already<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>you need to propose how you find the right place to do the translation
> of<b=
>  >>r>
>  >>headers - this requires some sort of overlay control plane and might
> ential=
>  >><br>
>  >>the use of a new overlay meta-addressing system or make =A0use of
> name<br>
>  >>spaces as in IPNL or related work on I^3<br>
>  >><a href=3D"http://128.232.0.20/teaching/0910/R02/papers/ipnl.pdf"
> target=3D=
>  >>"_blank">http://128.232.0.20/teaching/0910/R02/papers/ipnl.pdf</a><br>
>  >><a href=3D"http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/166.pdf"
> target=3D"_b=
>  >>lank">http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/166.pdf</a><br>
>  >><br>
>  >><br>
>  >>many of the ways IPv4/IPv6 interworking have also tackled this, not
> just<br=
>  >>>
>  >>using tunnels or tunnel brokers, but lots of other techniques<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>there are LOTS and LOTS of papers in the future internet research<br>
>  >>programmes around the world on how to do this ad solve other
> practical<br>
>  >>problems - see work in the IETF on ILNP for example<br>
>  >><a href=3D"http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/" target=3D"_blank">
> http://ilnp.=
>  >>cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/</a><br>
>  >><br>
>  >>e2e is just one discussion place - the future internet research
> programmes<=
>  >>br>
>  >>have moved a long way beyond the necessary and insufficienct business
> of<br=
>  >>>
>  >>deploying IPv6 as fast and as widely as possible, and on to tackling
> a<br>
>  >>bunch of new problems (Information centric networking, for example,
> or<br>
>  >>massive scale internet of things and sensors etc etc)<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>communities of interest for that include conferences such as ACM
> Sigcomm<br=
>  >>>
>  >>and Usenix NSDI and IEEE Infocom and many others...<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>ideas like XIA (see recent FIA report<br>
>  >><a href=3D"
> http://www.nets-fia.net/Meetings/May11/May%202011%20meeting%20re=
>  >>port%203-1.pdf" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.nets-fia.net/Meetings/May11/Ma=
>  >>y%202011%20meeting%20report%203-1.pdf</a><br>
>  >>amongst oterhs) go way beyond identifiers for end points and have
> entire<br=
>  >>>
>  >>DAGs coded in packets (efficiently)<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>there&#39;s so much exciting new stuff out there....<br>
>  >><br>
>  >><br>
>  >>on the other hand, practical barriers to deploying lots of different
> stuff<=
>  >>br>
>  >>exist, not just in the slowness/ossified internet core IPv4 routers,
> but in=
>  >><br>
>  >>the many weird boxes nearer the edges - see the Trilogy project<br>
>  >>folks&#39; paper on<br>
>  >>How Hard Can It Be? Designing and Implementing a Deployable Multipath
> TCP<b=
>  >>r>
>  >>at<br>
>  >><a href=3D"
> https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi12/tech-schedule/technical=
>  >>-sessions" target=3D"_blank">
> https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi12/tech-=
>  >>schedule/technical-sessions</a><br>
>  >><br>
>  >>and also in same conference session, the cunning tricks the Yale folks
> had<=
>  >>br>
>  >>to empoy to get small changes into TCP:<br>
>  >>Fitting Square Pegs Through Round Pipes: Unordered Delivery
> Wire-Compatible=
>  >><br>
>  >>with TCP and TLS<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>In missive &lt;CACQuieYAU+O1bXYdM+ZJsknXE=3D<a href=3D"mailto:
> 8wPgzftOxKJ73=
>  >>Mshxu2Dtc6A at mail.gmail.com">8wPgzftOxKJ73Mshxu2Dtc6A at mail.gmail.com
> </a>&gt;=
>  >>, Par<br>
>  >>s Mutaf typed:<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;--047d7b4140c626654d04c9f67a1c<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1<br>
>  >><div><div class=3D"h5">=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Off-list messages that I received indicate to me that I was
> not =
>  >>taken<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;seriously<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;because I am too modest. I was called a troll and hobbyist.
> I ha=
>  >>ve in fact<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;a PhD in<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;computer science from INRIA, France. I am now an asst prof.
> in T=
>  >>urkey.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;But I let go my PhD title because my thinking evolved beyond
> you=
>  >>r<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;imagination ;-).<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Check and support my project (off-list please this is
> off-topic)=
>  >>:<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"http://www.content-based-science.org/"
> target=3D"_bla=
>  >>nk">http://www.content-based-science.org/</a><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;What is important is the content. Not the name.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Now back to our topic. IPng was clearly designed the wrong
> way. =
>  >>Now read<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;the<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;message again, this is the result of 15 years thinking:<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;-----<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Dear colleagues,<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;I believe that the next step in IP&#39;s evolution would not
> be =
>  >>IPv6. It would<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;be &quot;Discrete IP&quot; allowing any IP version.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;I concluded that Discrete IP better respects the end-to-end
> prin=
>  >>ciples<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;therefore it is economically more viable.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;***Do not touch the existing Internet, do not assume that
> IPv6 i=
>  >>s the end of<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;centuries of research.***<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;-I propose that we do not touch the core Internet, i.e.
> enforce =
>  >>the<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;modification of all Internet routers, this is what IPv6
> does.<br=
>  >>>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;-People should be free to choose the IP version that they
> wish b=
>  >>ecause<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;deciding for others is a technology blocker. IETF designs
> IPv6, =
>  >>IETF blocks<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;its development. Because IETF does not give freedom of
> choice. T=
>  >>his is not<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;normal. Some entities may use IPv6 others IPv4 yet others
> IPv7 f=
>  >>or unknown<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;reasons. Everybody may agree on IPv6, or not. We do not
> know. We=
>  >> do not<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;have to.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;-To give such freedom of choice, we need to change the
> end-nodes=
>  >>, for<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;example TCP.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;-This is the end-to-end principle.<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Here is a picture (in this picture we have a network of
> Internet=
>  >>s running<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;random IP versions):<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"
> http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/ima=
>  >>ges/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg" target=3D"_blank">
> http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/37=
>  >>98kx3chs1szfhj/images/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg</a><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;The question is:<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;***Would this be the ideal for the Internet? Please discuss
> this=
>  >> question<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;without entering in design challenges.***<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;For more information, see my unpublished paper:<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"http://www.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP"
> targ=
>  >>et=3D"_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP</a><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Cheers,<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Pars<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;--<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"http://www.content-based-science.org"
> target=3D"_blan=
>  >>k">http://www.content-based-science.org</a><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >></div></div>=A0&gt;&gt;--047d7b4140c626654d04c9f67a1c<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Content-Type: text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;Off-list messages that I received indicate to me that I was
> not =
>  >>taken serio=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;usly&lt;br&gt;because I am too modest. I was called a troll
> and =
>  >>hobbyist. I have =3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;in fact a PhD in &lt;br&gt;computer science from INRIA,
> France. =
>  >>I am now an asst =3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;prof. in Turkey. &lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;But I let go my PhD title because my thinking evolved beyond
> you=
>  >>r imaginati=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;on ;-). &lt;br&gt;Check and support my project (off-list
> please =
>  >>this is off-topic=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;):&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=3D3D&quot;<a href=3D"
> http://www=
>  >>.content-based-science.org/" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.content-based-sci=
>  >>ence.org/</a>&quot;&gt;<a href=3D"http://www.cont"
> target=3D"_blank">http:/=
>  >>/www.cont</a>=3D<br>
>  >>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"http://ent-based-science.org/"
> target=3D"_blank">ent-=
>  >>based-science.org/</a>&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;What is important is the content. Not the
> name.&lt;br&=
>  >>gt;&lt;br&gt;Now back to our =3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;topic. IPng was clearly designed the wrong way. Now read the
> &lt=
>  >>;br&gt;message ag=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;ain, this is the result of 15 years
> thinking:&lt;br&gt;-----&lt;=
>  >>br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Dear colleagu=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;es,&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;I believe that the next step in IP&amp;#39;s
> evolution=
>  >> would not be IPv6. I=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;t would&lt;br&gt;be &amp;quot;Discrete IP&amp;quot; allowing
> any=
>  >> IP version.&lt;br&gt;I conclud=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;ed that Discrete IP better respects the end-to-end
> principles&lt=
>  >>;br&gt;therefore =3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;it is economically more viable.&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;***Do not touch the existing Internet, do not
> assume t=
>  >>hat IPv6 is the e=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;nd of&lt;br&gt;centuries of
> research.***&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;-I p=
>  >>ropose that we do not touch t=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;he core Internet, i.e. enforce the&lt;br&gt;modification of
> all =
>  >>Internet routers,=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt; this is what IPv6 does.&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;-People should be free to choose the IP version that they
> wish b=
>  >>ecause&lt;br&gt;d=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;eciding for others is a technology blocker. IETF designs
> IPv6, I=
>  >>ETF blocks&lt;=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;br&gt;its development. Because IETF does not give freedom of
> cho=
>  >>ice. This is n=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;ot&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;normal. Some entities may use IPv6 others IPv4 yet others
> IPv7 f=
>  >>or unknown&lt;=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;br&gt;reasons. Everybody may agree on IPv6, or not. We do
> not kn=
>  >>ow. We do not&lt;=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;br&gt;have to.&lt;br&gt;-To give such freedom of choice, we
> need=
>  >> to change the end-n=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;odes, for&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;example TCP.&lt;br&gt;-This is the end-to-end
> principle.&lt;br&g=
>  >>t;&lt;br&gt;Here is a picture=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt; (in this picture we have a network of Internets
> running&lt;br&g=
>  >>t;random IP versi=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;ons):&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=3D3D&quot;<a href=3D"
> http://htmlimg4.s=
>  >>cribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/image=3D" target=3D"_blank">
> http://htmlimg=
>  >>4.scribdassets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/image=3D</a><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;s/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg&quot;&gt;<a href=3D"
> http://htmlimg4.scribdass=
>  >>ets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/image=3D" target=3D"_blank">
> http://htmlimg4.scribd=
>  >>assets.com/3798kx3chs1szfhj/image=3D</a><br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;s/4-ce35c39dd1.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;The question is:&lt;br&gt;***Would this be the ideal for the
> Int=
>  >>ernet? Please dis=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;cuss this question&lt;br&gt;without entering in design
> challenge=
>  >>s.***&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;For =3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;more information, see my unpublished
> paper:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&=
>  >>lt;a href=3D3D&quot;<a href=3D"http://www.sc" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.=
>  >>sc</a>=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"http://ribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP"
> target=3D"=
>  >>_blank">ribd.com/doc/105448105/Discrete-IP</a>&quot;&gt;<a href=3D"
> http://w=
>  >>ww.scribd.com/doc/105448105/Dis=3D" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.scribd.com=
>  >>/doc/105448105/Dis=3D</a><br>
>  >>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;crete-IP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cheers,&lt;br&gt;Pars&lt;br
> clear=3D3D&quot;all&quot;&=
>  >>gt;&lt;br&gt;-- &lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=3D3D&quot;<a href=3D"
> http://www.conte"=
>  >> target=3D"_blank">http://www.conte</a>=3D<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<a href=3D"http://nt-based-science.org"
> target=3D"_blank">nt-bas=
>  >>ed-science.org</a>&quot; target=3D3D&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;<a
> href=3D"http:/=
>  >>/www.content-based-science.or" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.content-based-s=
>  >>cience.or</a>=3D<br>
>  >>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;<br>
>  >>=A0&gt;&gt;--047d7b4140c626654d04c9f67a1c--<br>
>  >><br>
>  >>=A0cheers<br>
>  >><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
>  >>=A0 =A0jon<br>
>  >><br>
>  >></font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><a
> href=
>  >>=3D"http://www.content-based-science.org" target=3D"_blank">
> http://www.cont=
>  >>ent-based-science.org</a><br><br>
>  >>
>  >>--047d7bae44c8472c4304c9f8c72f--
>
>  cheers
>
>    jon
>
>


-- 
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120918/11c2e6ec/attachment-0001.html


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list