Re: [Qirg] Survey paper about the Quantum Internet Protocol Stack

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 27/06/2022 à 14:35, Joseph D Touch a écrit :
> Hi, Alexm
> 
> ...
> 
> On 6/27/22, 3:39 AM, "Alexandre Petrescu" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      Le 13/06/2022 à 19:08, Joseph D Touch a écrit :
>      [...]
> 
>      >> I would then say that IP needs electromagnetic waves (be them
>      >> through copper, fiber or through nothing, like WiFi) - in order to
>      >> transmit datagrams, otherwise IP would not work.
>      >
>      > IP can use any boson or fermion; qubits can use any boson or fermion
>      > that can exhibit superposition.
>      >
>      > E.g., I can run IP by sending notes by carrier pigeon (in the famous
>      > example); that does not use EM waves.
> 
>      Fair enough.  There is an RFC for transmission of IP datagrams with
>      avian carriers (avian==pigeon).  There is also at least one
>      implementation visible on youtube.  That does not use electromagnetic waves.
> 
>      IIRC the RFC with IP on avian carriers was an April's Fool.  It can be a
>      subject of joke.
> 
> Like most April Fool's RFCs, there was truth to many aspects of it. Although nobody expects an efficient network based on pidgins, it remains true that the symbols used in an Internet implementation need not be bosons.
> 
> ...
>      In that sense, it can be a serious matter to write an
>      IPv6-with-AvianCarriers I-D that takes into consideration an IPv6
>      address of the pigeon.  Sending a packet in that way: source -
>      intermediary - destination, each having an IP address, could be a novel
>      paradigm in the Internet, which is used to source-destination only.
> 
> Avian carries does not introduce an intermediate address at the network layer. Its addrsses would be no different to IP than are Ethernet addresses; they represent the link addresses.

A pidgeon equipped with a small computer (maybe a small ARM or STMicro
board) would need to have an IP address.  The source desktop PC would
record data on the pidgeon computer, by sending it IP packets.  Pidgeon
would then fly.  At arrival, the destination desktop PC would read the
message from the pidgeon computer's IP address.

This is src-intermediary-dst communication that is different than
src-dst communication.

This 'intermediary' is actually the flight.  The flight does not involve
electromagnetic waves.  It is some kind of communication that is outside
the scope of classical communications.

Because of this blackbox nature of the flight (something happens during
the flight, but we dont really know what, from the em standpoint), one
might assimilate the avian carrying to the quantum communications.
There too something happens during the reading of a particle that the
counterpart reads the same - but we dont know what from an
electromagnetic wave standpoint, yet they do communicate.

> 
> Additionally, IP isn't source-destination only; both IPv4 and IPv6 have 'source route' options.

Fair enough.  However, the source route concept of IP does not change a 
higher level's protocol workings, such as TCP.

On another hand, with src-intermediary-dst communications the normal TCP 
would not work.  There would be two distinct TCP connections, long 
separated in time - maybe 1 day.  One TCP connection between src and 
intermediary, and one between intermediary (pidgeon) and dst.
>
>      Further, it can be considered that the data carried by a pigeon would be
>      encrypted, and if that used a quantum-resistant algorithm then we had an
>      approach between quantum networking and avian carriers.
> 
> This group and discussion has been focused on quantum systems, not quantum-resistant classical systems.

I agree then.

> 
>      >> I suspect the qubits dont need electromagnetic waves in order to
>      >> appear elsewhere (aka 'to be transmitted'), hence there is a
>      >> difference.
>      >
>      > They do too. The collapse of entanglement of the superposition can
>      > happen later, BUT it also always relies on classical communication to
>      > be meaningful.
> 
>      This is entirely unclear to me, I dont know(?)
> 
>      I thought, really, that quantum communication did not involve
>      electromagnetic waves at all, but some other way of transmitting data.
> 
> Photons are EM waves.

I agree photons are EM waves in some experiments.

But I meant this 'entanglement' mentioned in draft-irtf-qirg-principles.

I understand this entanglement works without photons, and hence without 
electromagnetic waves.

I understand this entanglement is able to communicate information from 
one place to another.

Hence - quantum networks (entanglement) dont use electromagnetic waves, 
whereas classical networks do.

Hopefully I dont miss something.

> And the "classical communication" I'm referring to is the classical network used to coordinate the quantum one, i.e., to exchange basis pairs, coordinate bell pair use, etc.

For that 'classical communication' network used to coordinate a quantum 
network - I agree it uses electromagnetic waves.

Do you mean that a practical quantum network necessarily involves a 
classical network to coordinate it, and hence a practical quantum 
network necessarily involves electromagnetic waves, indirectly?

Alex

> 
> Joe
>   
>