Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Christian:

1)    I am a person who normally does not do hearsay. This was why I put 
the unverified "street legend" about ancient Lord in parentheses to just 
hint the possible extreme. Without it, the flow of my short story really 
does not change. Since you spotted on it, I went back to search for the 
online article that I had in mind. The following URL is likely what I 
read because the keyword "Celtic" linked my vague understanding of 
Ireland to England in general:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tollund-man-europe-bog-body-meal-food-history-mummy-180978247/

    There were several hypotheses in the above hinting the 
interpretation that I got. The following citation seems to be more 
specific.

*****************

“In Ireland, the king is the pivotal member of society, so when things 
go wrong, he pays the price,” says Kelly. “All the new bodies discovered 
since then have reaffirmed this theory.

*****************

For sure, this subject is off topic on this mailing list. Have fun to 
dig into it, if you like. I will be glad to carry on with you offline.

2)    " I am not assured that my interests are protected from anybody by 
being told I have no direct access to people I want to communicate with 
but have to go through a third party. ...  ":    I am not sure that I 
can properly decipher your precise preference through a long paragraph. 
But, based on your general tone, I get the sense that you prefer the 
current "Internet way" than a more explicit and rigid communication 
system convention that EzIP proposes. If so, you might be living in fantasy:

    A.    Note that the privacy and security issues are multi-faceted. 
One has to look at them from the perspectives of both the victims and 
the perpetrators. There was a "classic" paper a long time ago (2006) 
that made this painfully clear.

Internet Geolocation and Evasion

https://www.ccsl.carleton.ca/paper-archive/muir-computingsurveys-09.pdf

    It was a long research paper. But, a concise summary was given in 
Section 6 Concluding Remarks:
    *********
We note that even if accurate IP geolocation is possible for 99% of IP 
addresses, if the remaining 1% is fixed and predictable by an adversary, 
and such that the adversary can place themselves within this subspace, 
then they can evade geolocation 100% of the time.
    *********

   Judging by the facts that the targeted marketing is very successful 
these days, while it is very challenging to identify, let alone to 
locate, a perpetrator, the above is most likely still true.

    B.    On the other hand, governments have been taking advantage of 
the current Internet privacy practices as the excuse to actually invade 
individual's privacy. See below for a recent status report:

'A free pass to seize and sift': Federal court upholds terrorism 
conviction in controversial mass surveillancecase

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/12/08/federal-court-upholds-terrorism-conviction-mass-surveillance-case/6440325001/ 
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/12/08/federal-court-upholds-terrorism-conviction-mass-surveillance-case/6440325001/>

3)    Based on the master/slave relationship, the current sever/client 
operation model dominates the Content Delivery Networks (CDN) that even 
handles eMail services (probably by offering their off-peak spare 
capacity, since eMail is time insensitive). This was evidenced by eMail 
services got interrupted when Netflix service was down recently. This 
means that, like it or not, individual's communications have been 
buffered, relayed, etc. along the way, giving more than enough 
opportunities for the "free service" third, or fourth party providers to 
do whatever they wish, anyway. So, we should stop the current kind of 
ostrich mentality for our own good. What EzIP proposes is to forget 
about all these current fictitious "protections", but go back to the 
explicit communications disciplines of yesterday years. So that, the 
behind-the-scene mass surveillance will be outlawed again. Then, 
whenever there is any need to monitor a suspected party, an explicit 
request must be first made by a law enforcement agency to the court. 
Sorry to those businesses who provide surveillance and analysis 
equipment (computers and memories) as well as service to law enforcement 
agencies.

Regards,


Abe (2022-04-02 17:50)




On 2022-04-02 12:13, christian de larrinaga wrote:
> Your take on English history is a delightful fantasy but it is
> just that a delightful fantasy. Norman barons were not typically
> concerned with the health of their anglo saxon/british serfs / yoemen
> other than providing the required tithes.
>
> But taking you at what seems to be your intention. Speaking as a digital peasant I am not assured that my interests are 
> protected
> from anybody by being told I have no direct access to people I want to
> communicate with but have to go through a third party. Any addressing
> model that  terminates address space between me and someone I
> communicate with also terminates my communications and security and by
> so doing introduces a number of uncertainties potentially rather
> arbitrary to what would otherwise be under my direct policy domain.
>
> C
>
>
> "Abraham Y. Chen"<aychen () avinta com>  writes:
>
> > Hi, Christian:
> >
> > 0)    Allow me following your "towers of babel world" metaphor to tell
> > a short story.
> >
> > 1)    In the ancient days, peasants labored under the shadow of the
> > Tower, following the rules of and paid tax to the Lord living in the
> > Tower. In return, they expected protection from the Lord against
> > harms. (Sometime ago, I read an archaeological article reporting
> > certain evidence that the Load somewhere in England during medieval
> > time might have been expected to protect his peasants from any harm,
> > including even paid his life for famine.)
> >
> > 2)    In the modern world, the peasants still live around the Tower
> > following the rules, paying taxes and expecting protection from the
> > Lord, now represented by the government agencies such as local police,
> > FCC, FTC, DoD, DHS, etc.
> >
> > 3)    In the Internet era, the peasants roam everywhere around the
> > cyberspace freely enjoying the Internet way. However, their wealth is
> > now being siphoned out to the invisible Lords (the multi-national
> > businesses with virtual presence in each and every Tower). However,
> > little can be expected in return when perpetrators attack, because no
> > Lord assumes the responsibility, nor any can be held responsible.
> >
> > 4)    EzIP proposes an overlay cyberspace with geographic flavor to
> > restore the society infrastructure back to Pt. 2) above, while
> > providing the daily services of Pt. 3). It essentially offers a
> > parallel Internet for the peasants who can again expect protection
> > from their local government who collects taxes, while without losing
> > the benefits of the digital revolution.
> >
> > 5)    The two cyberspaces are expected to coexist and none-interfering
> > to each other. Peasants have the freedom of choice by living in either
> > or try both then decide.
> >
> > The above is just a quick rough thought, far from polished. It is
> > intended to be a preliminary framework so that we can hang some meat
> > on it for starting meaningful discussions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Abe (2022-04-01 14:17)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-03-27 11:03, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> > > On 27 March 2022 15:53:25 Brandon Butterworth<brandon () rd bbc co uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> > > > > EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4
> > > > > address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via
> > > > > one IPv4
> > > > > public address.
> > > > So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connections? Nobody
> > > > of scale would accept such a limitation. It also looks like an
> > > > opportunity for telcos/governments to partition their part
> > > > of the internet and impose whatever censorship they wish.
> > > >
> > > > > As such, the collection of RANs forms an overlay network
> > > > > layer wrapping around the current Internet core. Consequently, only the
> > > > > SPRs in the RAN need to be able to transport 240/4 addressed packets.
> > > > You previously described this as like connecting CG-NATs together via a
> > > > VPN. I don't see why we'd want to add maintaining a global VPN to
> > > > already difficult peering relationships. It could be used to exlude non
> > > > EzIP club members.
> > > >
> > > > > This is why we talk about enabling new (but based on existing design)
> > > > > routers to use 240/4 netblock for serving as SPRs, but not perturbing
> > > > > any routers in the current Internet.
> > > > As it's a CG-NAT variant why are you delaying yourself by requiring
> > > > new address space that will take a long time to become available? Why
> > > > not use the already allocated space for CG-NAT? Sure it's only a /10
> > > > but that's an already (probably too) large RAN.
> > > >
> > > > It also seems unfeasibly optimistic that if the work was done globally
> > > > to make 240/4 useable that they'd want to dedicate it to the as yet
> > > > undeployed EzIP. You might stand more chance if you gained some
> > > > critical mass using the existing available 100.64/10 & rfc1918 space,
> > > > and then those that find they need more in one RAN will make the case
> > > > for 240/4 when it becomes necessary for them. Is 240/4 special to
> > > > EzIP such that alternative numbers may not be used?
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to share one intriguing graphics (see URL below) that
> > > > > is almost perfect for depicting the EzIP deployment configuration.
> > > > > Consider the blue sphere as the earth or the current Internet core and
> > > > > the golden colored land as the RANs. By connecting each continent,
> > > > > country or all the way down to a Region to the earth via one IPv4
> > > > > address, we have the EzIP configuration. With this architecture, each
> > > > > RAN looks like a private network.
> > > > That sounds an entirely undesirable goal for the internet.
> > > >
> > > > brandon
> > > It isn't the Internet. It's at best a very poorly connected spur gateway.
> > >
> > > Too many today don't remember the towers of Babel world prior to the
> > > Internet. If they did they'd understand that building on this type
> > > of idea is like burying yourself.... And any customers so unwise to
> > > get involved
> > >
> > > C


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus