Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Growth of the Internet May Take Nothing Short of a Revolution
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:11:47 -0500
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:35:50 -0500 From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19 () bobf frankston com>Subject: RE: [IP] Growth of the Internet May Take Nothing Short of a Revolution
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com Cc: "David P. Reed Ph. D." <dpreed () reed com>, 'Dewayne Hendricks' <dewayne () dandin com> [Dave -- I'm sending this note with some hesitancy because I feel I should provide more detail and have a specific proposal but given the WSJ story it seems appropriate to respond with an overview of what it really means to rethink the Internet -- it's far more about being dynamic than speed or other technical demos.] Revolt? More like just create the kind of Internet we need out of the pieces lying around. After all, it is just a prototype. I've been thinking a lot about these issues and have decided that my "dotDNS" (removing the semantics from the DNS) and IPV6 are not enough. A few years ago David Reed and I talked about rethinking the Internet now that we know how well it works. I put it to the side because I thought it would better to take incremental approaches first. But the incremental approaches failed to address the fundamental issues. In speaking to Paul Vixie and others it became apparent that even if I got what I wanted the routing problem was going to be a limiting factor. In speaking to Dewayne, it also became apparent that radios are a forcing issue for the not-very-dynamic Internet - once we aren't dealing with spectrum management then radios can simply come into existence and disappear in less time that it takes to petition for an IP address. I'm working on a detailed proposal but the basic idea is very simple -- going back to basic end-to-end model. Start by having the concept of end point but now that the idea has proven itself we don't need to associate it with a physical computer. We can keep the concept abstract. We can also get past tying the end points to any particular model of routing. In fact we can have abstract relationships that don't require routing. This concept is already evident in the use of URNs for their uniqueness without associating them with an actual device. The End Point Identifier (EPI) can be a very long random number that is self-chosen, un-guessable and usable as crypto key. Routing is just another service and not a layer. Unlike the classic IP address the EPI is fundamentally stable. The routing infrastructure doesn't have to track them -- it just needs to deliver packets to a nearby way station which is what it already does but only a special case -- the gateway. An end point can be a conversation that uses a particular computer as a way station for routing. The conversation can move to another machine without disruption because it is defined by the EPIs and not the computer of the moment. The host computer isn't an issue, NATs are not an issue and a particular provider's routing addresses are not an issue. Since the EPIs are all first class addresses and decentralized there is no need for the DNS to provide stable handles nor ICANN et al to dispense identifiers. Crypto is necessary in order to avoid dependency upon the benevolence of every way station along the route. WEP and all that are also nonissue. Obviously I'm only touching upon the concepts here and will be writing about this in more detail as well as working with others to drill down on the design details. Even if people don't accept my contention that it is very doable the very idea of getting past all of those issues should be interesting if not exciting. I realize that this short explanation will probably confuse a lot of people but that's the risk of giving a short synopsis of ideas whose simplicity is based on underlying principles that take time to absorb. In reading the WSJ article I'm amused by the idea that we should resurrect the concept of circuits -- people are confused anyway. The real power of this approach comes from becoming fundamentally and intrinsically decentralized. It can be implemented by those who choose to without asking permission. The current Internet provides an initial set of routing options so there is no need to build a new physical Internet just for the new protocols. Sometimes it's easier to repave than keep patching. It is far simpler to just assume stable names and use whatever routing is available than requiring even more complex routing. It is infinitely simpler than dealing with the ICANN debacle or hoping the DNS works or hoping your operating system does V6 at all let alone with encryption. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Growth of the Internet May Take Nothing Short of a Revolution Dave Farber (Dec 24)