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" <ayc...@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 <bran...@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 >> -- christian de larrinaga https://firsthand.net
