Re: Why one Internet?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 10 April 2012 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 17AC911E80C9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 CZGuOAoqLMyZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E372611E80BE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq11 with SMTP id q11so1318685eaa.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gjWGAwred3mh16L1DC2vAvJzSYYt0Z5owwVSdUrgteo=; b=JJTbBQTeirt4G3+Tza8Pk41S1Ik68FixKLulHrgel2mGNetTHhz2gogrvlcq+tPvRt JhM2ibXkPJd/PrAk1vCiUiX59YUNnqaciA+uU8kd4+SJ/ieTwprBy/IzaoLKIJk4Sg5N m83LnJ88Ll7w79L+6xZDGdxxVUedq3Ftyaf4pkgrPMjecY9NAS56SzxlZGRUuxV2DkVp EBfBupvFvIX7iQrWh0/ZbjngySFize+ewFgNkrO/r9gLln27EeU2NhcFgvI/P54uHcv6 Vf0euVuhJPK+ygtMMHcLapJY8yuSbhWt+Z7K8l8FuK7e3qX4iXbSP2zziTg4YXDCF7Ql IZaA==
Received: by 10.213.32.5 with SMTP id a5mr731237ebd.35.1334068274008; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.33.230] (lapwing-gw-1.csx.cam.ac.uk. [131.111.1.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4sm47536335eef.10.2012.04.10.07.31.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F844428.7050408@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:31:04 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
References: <CACQuieahKvE3VRPXcCirc4zhHokpkQVsMUDdcrjkZdNoSKpidg@mail.gmail.com> <2A473079-6CF0-49B9-93CD-F0BA27500CEF@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2A473079-6CF0-49B9-93CD-F0BA27500CEF@cs.ucla.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
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 14:31:16 -0000

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.

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------