IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 05 April 2013 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5B821F971B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 01:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EmO4ix9mjAry for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 01:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pi.nu (unknown [195.206.248.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1344B21F9718 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 01:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.102] (unknown [121.54.51.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A938D7FE07; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:47:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <515E8FA9.1030901@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:47:37 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
References: <20130401215830.710ADB1E007@rfc-editor.org> <CADnDZ88CPZ0YTbZue-=Rs0UEEocEjf376Y4s1f9j6YLQfMYkog@mail.gmail.com> <5EF5988B-04A4-4944-81CF-CC93B546C9F5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5EF5988B-04A4-4944-81CF-CC93B546C9F5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:47:51 -0000

Bob,

thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
packets that was sent in the future already now?

/Loa


On 2013-04-02 18:19, Bob Hinden wrote:
> AB,
>
> On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> RFC6921>It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time
>> slows down.
>> AB> I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light,
>> but communication is not something moving. If the packet is in speed
>> of light we may reduce the comm-delay but never less than zero. The
>> communication times don't change if at least one communicator is not
>> moving in light speed.
>>
>> My comment is that I think this RFC is not logical, and I don't
>> understand its recommendations. There is no way that a packet can be
>> received before send, packet-time never changes communicators-time
>> while the positions of both Tx and Rx are semi-fixed (change is
>> relative to communicators' times not their signal). I think the
>> communication-times may change when the communicators are at/above
>> speed of light not the signal/packet. Is my physics correct?
>
> Only time will tell.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email