[e2e] Discrete IP - retake

Pars Mutaf pars.mutaf at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 20:06:30 PDT 2012


On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Arun Welch <welch at anzus.com> wrote:

> Having actually done disaster relief  on a number of occasions I can
> assure you that 72 hrs is extremely optimistic for anything beyond simple
> triage even in first-world situations. Even when the relief has been
> pre-staged it takes time to clear roads, etc. Helo's have very limited
> carrying capacity.
>
>
You don't question anything but sooooo sure about yourself.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashdeep_Aerostat

We also have aiplanes, drop many many satellite phones to the disaster
area. They are too cheaper than bombs.

This is an education problem.




> ...arun
>
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:40 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>
> Sorry I don't believe this. I continue to question everything.
>
> I don't believe that there is a 72 hours delay. We have helicopters, etc.
> If there is an
> unacceptable delay, the right approach is to invest on decreasing this
> delay because
> communication is not the only problem in a disasters scenario. People need
> food, water,
> etc.
>
> Do some meditation and ask yourself the *real reason of these
> publications*. It took
> me 5 years to see the naked truth.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Jon Crowcroft <
> Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you take a little while to read the literature on disasters,
>> you will know that the typical delay before the emergency services
>> arrive is approximately 72 hours.
>>
>> A ver good text if you want a summary of many
>> real world disasters is this book
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0670021075
>>
>> The use of MANET (and in extreme low connectivit cases, DTN)
>> is better than nothing.
>>
>> vehicular use of infrastructure is expensive - car-to-car networks
>> are clearly a very good way to get high capacity low latency data
>> _along_ the higheay, especially in rural areas where incentives to
>> deploy a lot of infrastructure is low right now.
>>
>> of course, you are right that the miltary don't tell us anything,
>> except they funded the Internet, through DARPA (D=defense) and
>> told Berkeley to release the BSD source code for TCP/IP which led
>> to a public free, unencombered high quality code base for everyone
>> to learn from, so yes, as usual you're right and I dont know
>> anything
>>
>> In missive <
>> CACQuieYE2E_3dr55Gvi0yuZm+w0CG+KzK4G=1ZXwdcz+wqnkwA at mail.gmail.
>> com>, Pars Mutaf typed:
>>
>>  >>
>>  >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jon Crowcroft
>>  >><Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>> in a typical disaster scenario, many of whuch have been studied in
>>  >>> great detail,  people have to make do with resources they have to
>>  >>> hand
>>  >>>
>>  >>> they may be spread over a large area (e.g all of indonesia, japan,
>>  >>> california) and not be prepared with giant ballons as you desribed
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>Preparing the balloons is not the users' task of course.
>>  >>
>>  >>Organizations like red cross will prepare them.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>> what many DO have is phones and laptops.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> manets can be usefully built out of these.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>
>>  >>MANET may not work for isolated users in a disaster scenario
>>  >>because they are too far away from the rest of the network.
>>  >>
>>  >>So MANET is not only useless, it has a very low probability to work.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>> in a military scenario i menion, your giant ballon idea is a great
>>  >>> target for the other side
>>  >>>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>I personally do not argue for the army.. This is not really research,
>>  >>because they do obscure things that we do not even know. They can just
>>  >>use the most expensive satellite phones. They do not care.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> in the vehicular scenario i menion, a giant ballon would be a big
>>  >>> drag, especially when you go through tunnels and under bridges.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>Vehicular networks are *unnecessarily dangerous*. Just use the
>>  >>infrastructure
>>  >>network.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>> your move, sunshine.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> In missive <
>> CACQuieY3JBSFUvL_ugse4VRhT4xofOHyZZdvRHNdt+JzTx6F5g at mail.gmail.
>>  >>> com>, Pars Mutaf typed:
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  >>--20cf307f39aa2712b204ca091b8d
>>  >>>  >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>You do not question enough Jon. See:
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12602.html
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jon Crowcroft
>>  >>>  >><jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>> Take the MANET example, sure. Many use cases exist since ARPA
>> Packet
>>  >>> radio
>>  >>>  >>> days. Battlefield networks, disaster recovery networks,
>> vehicular
>>  >>>  >>> networks...some actually in use ad deployed.
>>  >>>  >>>
>>  >>>  >>> The internet isn't for just one thing.it is, by definition, for
>>  >>> anything
>>  >>>  >>> we can imagine and realize...it is the union of all
>> communications,
>>  >>> not the
>>  >>>  >>> intersection of one notion with one technology.
>>  >>>  >>> On 18 Sep 2012 17:48, "Pars Mutaf" <pars.mutaf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>  >>>  >>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jon Crowcroft <
>>  >>>  >>>> Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>> this is what we used to talk about as the
>>  >>>  >>>>> "my problem is too hard even for you" poser syndrome
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>> basically, whenever you offer a workable solution,
>>  >>>  >>>>> the poser (of the problem) changes the
>>  >>>  >>>>> problem (or the assumptions)
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> No I didn't change the problem:
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> What do we want for the Internet? Did we really ask this
>> question?
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> Take MANET for example, they did not ask themselves what it is
>> used
>>  >>> for.
>>  >>>  >>>> They cannot explain.
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> I would start a new thread "What do we want for the Internet"
>>  but I
>>  >>> am
>>  >>>  >>>> not sure if I should do this.
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> Cheers,
>>  >>>  >>>> Pars
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>> one of the nice things about IP (and the E2E argument(s))
>>  >>>  >>>>> is that it is really hard to change the problem it solves
>>  >>>  >>>>> in a way it still doesn't solve, whichever version you choose
>>  >>>  >>>>> (well, ok, maybe not IPv5:)
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>> In missive <50589DCC.2030808 at dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker
>> typed:
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>On 9/18/2012 3:35 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>> In missive <
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>> CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO+V2XV1tFcP5PgT+Vq2A at mail.gmail.com>,
>>  >>> Par
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>> s Mutaf typed:
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>   >>> I encourage you to read the relevant prior work
>> (many
>>  >>>  >>>>> pointers were given)
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>   >>Only 1 pointer was given (by Jon Crowcroft), it is
>> not
>>  >>> relevant.
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>> it is exactly relevant.
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>in the broader sense of whether this thread has been, or
>> has any
>>  >>> hope
>>  >>>  >>>>> of
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>being, constructive, it was not relevant...
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>d/
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>--
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>  Dave Crocker
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>  >>>  >>>>>  >>  bbiw.net
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>  cheers
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>    jon
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>> --
>>  >>>  >>>> http://www.content-based-science.org
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>>>
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >>>  >>--
>>  >>>  >>http://www.content-based-science.org
>>  >>>  >>
>>  >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.content-based-science.org
>
>
>


-- 
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120920/7a727793/attachment.html


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list