Re: Why one Internet?

Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> Tue, 10 April 2012 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F5921F86F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 4PIDYomy5qmv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAB421F86C7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so2665863ghb.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rLZXfdb80QX/HsKBvdi2XxdcMWYBZAKhdp2u9GlSPQs=; b=yRHJRVOUr/sgAsBYCmHjziVBTAURbypjwHX5U1PR5niUQuEBZKn695zQKrDBsR08My 985vlUSNs9pKaKhUR6V6PIvqCefX3Rp1/eW5SSdKRnOySWvF9TeuMkZmeilv8KcjVHCT qFBdWjkNrvmL8hRiuXN83f2iY+UXleqh8kx8YOqa2FuJvQdVx/F4zgHVJMPe/EGXOydB KUpwrv5L6j14jDAKkITiQn7aQqlCl018mFYIuMhceVq9gl7FBYRo3vaMbqtsi4JL6mCx MeZgylvoaIHCxD7+hkHo4PgG5A9aRzr+tiEsjNtzy7oHtPk492cNeRUTTTOIsrJenuJN WyyQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.20.100 with SMTP id m4mr17209330oee.10.1334070183173; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.117.34 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F844428.7050408@gmail.com>
References: <CACQuieahKvE3VRPXcCirc4zhHokpkQVsMUDdcrjkZdNoSKpidg@mail.gmail.com> <2A473079-6CF0-49B9-93CD-F0BA27500CEF@cs.ucla.edu> <4F844428.7050408@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:03:03 +0300
Message-ID: <CACQuiea6+sGfYTg6iowcKYF=uYDP3AM=JiCHV=OGOiLKR6mnxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1ef4c5f9ec104bd546b70
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:03:06 -0000

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lixia,
>
> The original note says "I think it is possible to locate the node we need."
>
> So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to
> deal
> with the fact that addresses would be ambiguous. Since we have 15 years
> experience of the pain caused by ambiguous addresses, and a perfectly good
> 128 bit address space that avoids any need for ambiguous addresses, I don't
> see the point. It isn't even worth sending the code.
>
> Pars,
>
> Your original note also says "I am not here to discuss these details."
> Sorry,
> but in the IETF it's *exactly* the details that we must discuss; that's our
> job. We've been doing so since 1992 to my personal knowledge.
>
>
I propose have a network of Internets:

Internet1
Internet2
Internet3
...
Interntet_n

In Internet 1 and 2 we may have two nodes with the same address.
The goal is to route the packet to the right Internet. I don't think it is
impossible.

Pars




> Regards
>    Brian
>
> On 2012-04-10 15:09, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> > the Internet is a means to communicate.
> > and the market drives for most effective/efficient/economical
> communication systems (there are tradeoffs between the adjectives)
> > wonder if you could help explain how your picture of "network of
> Internets" would be more effective and economical (than what we have now)
> >
> > Lixia
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then
> another one etc.
> >>
> >> We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
> >>
> >> We just need a *network of Internets*.
> >>
> >> The first (current) Internet is an IPv4 Internet.
> >> The second Internet can be an IPv4 Internet too. In this case we would
> have 2 IPv4 Internets.
> >> Obviously, in this case, we would have the same addresses used by two
> different nodes in
> >> the two Internets. I think it is possible to locate the node we need. I
> am not here to discuss
> >> these details.
> >>
> >> The second Internet can be an IPv6 Internet.
> >>
> >> The second Internet can be a IPv7 Internet.
> >>
> >> The second Internet can be IPv6 but we may have a third one which is
> IPv7 etc.
> >>
> >> We just need a network of Internets, all possibly different.
> >>
> >> Pars
> >> http://content-based-science.org/
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>