Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

Short version:    If anyone can think of exceptions to these
                  constraints, then please describe them.

                  My assumption about "voluntary" adoption involves
                  the IPv4 Internet operating without disruption or
                  neglect.

Hi DY,

In reply to your message:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05449.html

regarding http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/ you
wrote, in part:

> Mostly, your constraints are common-sense, well-intended. 

I don't "intend" there to be any constraints.  I am trying to
describe the constraints which really exist.  I would be happiest if
there were no such constraints.

> Good to bear in mind. But, let's leave room where we have to 
> inevitably or for good persuading reason break the walls and
> not to meet to some or quite a number of them.

OK - maybe someone believes there is a solution to the routing
scaling problem which violates one of these 7 statements of absolute
constraint due to the need for voluntary adoption.  Then, assuming
they are correct (which we couldn't tell except by building their
solution and observing it really does solve the problem) then one of
these must be true:

  a - One or more of these statements about absolute constraints
      is incorrect.

      If so, then the person with the proposal should be able to
      explain why this is so.  Please do - I will change or annotate
      the page.

  b - Their proposal doesn't rely on voluntary adoption.

      That's fine, but the person should be able to show how their
      solution is going to be widely enough adopted without relying
      entirely on voluntary adoption.


I am assuming that "voluntary" means that end-user networks, with
free choice, find it attractive to adopt the new system in terms of
the direct benefits it brings them - irrespective of whether they
know or care about routing scalability.

I am also assuming that the existing Internet - the IPv4 Internet -
continues to function as well as can reasonably be expected, without
neglect or disruption.

The rest of this message is something of a ramble . . .


If someone set fire to the IPv4 Internet and there was nothing left,
and everyone voluntarily adopted another Internet network, such as
IPv6 with scalable routing additions, this would arguably be
"voluntary adoption".  However, this is so improbable that we should
assume it will never happen.

Maybe some people think that IPv4 will get so overcrowded that large
numbers - such as a majority of - ordinary users will "voluntarily"
adopt IPv6 instead, when they can't get IPv4 space in any usable
form.  Apart from IPv6 being used for vast new cellphone networks
(and then, with some IPv4 space and support for IPv4 communications
via tunnelling) I can't imagine that happening in the foreseeable
future. [1]

In the long term - decades or centuries - arguably it would be best
if someone destroyed an overly restrictive and unsatisfactory system,
as IPv4 arguably is - to break our dependence and force everyone to
make the effort to adopt a better system.  Similarly it would be best
to destroy all the freeways in countries which drive on the right, so
they can be rebuilt so everyone in the world drives on the proper
side of the road.[2]  Likewise, all Windows machines would be retired
or destroyed and all cellphone, ATM and passenger jet cockpit numeric
keyboards would be rearranged to match the pattern used in computer
keyboards.[3]  We would all go cold-turkey on QWERTY keyboards and
switch to Dvorak keyboards or some other input device.

If anyone can think of a way of forcing the adoption of a scalable
routing solution, that would be great - we could design a better
Internet without these constraints.

  - Robin



[1]  After 13 years or so, I think there has been no adoption of
     IPv6 for real general Internet use, as a replacement for IPv4.
     I don't think there is a single ordinary Internet user who
     can use the Net like any other user, using only IPv6.  Some
     hosts can communicate with other hosts via IPv6.  Some IPv6
     enthusiasts use it for some communications, but even among
     enthusiasts, no-one can obtain the general utility of Internet
     communications enjoyed by all IPv4 users, without relying
     primarily on IPv4.

[2]  The proper side to walk on a track or road is the left,
     so most people have their most effective (right) arm ready to
     defend against oncoming bandits.  England and other countries
     followed this pattern with horses and then motor vehicles.

     Countries which drive on the right are the victims of
     French political correctness.  By the time of the French
     Revolution, the proletariat were walking on the right of the
     road - for their own safety due to the bourgeoisie driving their
     carriages on the left.  Come the Revolution, Political
     Correctness decreed that all people were proletariat and so
     should use the right side.

[3]  I recall reading that the rot set in with inverted numbers
     in phone keyboards when Bell Telephone asked its customers
     whether they wanted the 789 row at the top, or next to the
     0 key on the bottom.  They chose the bottom, since they
     were used to 9 being near 0 on a rotary dial phone, which is
     actually 10 pulses.