Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050314160909.0310d8a0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:09:18 +0100
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: FW: Why?
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 10:46 14/03/2005, Tom Petch said:
> > As you know, the value of a network is roughly proportional to
> > the square of the participants.
>
>The value of a network can depend on what is on it, not how many or who.=
  One
>useful (http/ftp/...) server can make a network worth accessing, worth p=
aying
>for.  Even if there was noone else on this Internet, even if I never wan=
ted to
>e-mail anyone or anything, there are servers worth paying to access.

Tom,
The formula I use is "value =3D Sigma (users) Sigma (externets) (n.log(n)=
 -=20
=B5.n**2)" where externets are the links between the members of a class (=
IN,=20
CHAOS in the Internet) and the group of hosts accessible to a class (part=
ly=20
supported in the Internet through views). It can be reduced to "value =3D=
=20
n.log(n)-=B5.n**2".

Steve Crocker documented a good mathematical analysis of the n.log(n) par=
t,=20
simple thinking makes obvious (see below) and reality proves for 30 years=
.=20
However, the =B5.n**2 correction is the key element to understand a real=20
network evolution, and to accompany its development. This because a netwo=
rk=20
permits access to a decreasing number of pertinent value added=20
peoples/information (when you got a good answer you have less better=20
answers available - this is a logarithmic degression) while there are as=20
many people hiding them than others - the Metcalf law applies, negatively=
.=20
Reeds' law (2**n) is a theoretical formula for the Angels - you need=20
everyone to be of interest and eternity to fully take advantage from it:=20
when you consider we are in a polylogue area (to speak to many though man=
y)=20
it becomes the big bang formula.

=B5 is the "noise/confusion/pertinence hiding" factor. when =B5 =3D log (=
n) / n=20
we reach the state where the is no more value for the users and the=20
externet interest decreases. Managing a network is reducing the relative=20
value of the =B5 factor. But this becomes more difficult as n grows.

>I saw the Internet explode in the 1990s because of web servers, not=20
>because n**2 people could now talk to each other, so I think this a=20
>general point..

Yes. The web externet grown. But users understood it as an example of wha=
t=20
the Internet made possible. Realizing it, was just a commercial dazibao=20
they partly lost interest (no real decrease the =B5 factor) while their=20
number in increasing reduced the value, hence the blunt decrease in the=20
Internet value. New applications and stabilization reduced =B5, but spam =
now=20
is increasing the =B5 factor to a critical level.

The solution is to find new externets to reboost the network.=20
Multilingualism may provide 7260 of them. National risk containment and=20
intelligence protection permit to motivate people for 192 of them.=20
Proximity networks for cities, probably 10.000 of them or more. SNHN (sma=
ll=20
network, small networks) permits to consider billions of externets. Each =
of=20
them with a higher local  value, because of a smaller number of users and=
=20
probably of a lower =B5 factor (better adequation). Unfortunately, langua=
ges=20
are not quoted by IAB RFC 3869, the RFC 3066 issue and IDNs do not help=20
multilingualims based development, the global vision and the disinterest =
in=20
WGIG do not help nation/local interest support by IETF, lack of market=20
feed-backs in the Internet standard process leaves SNHN without real supp=
ort.

The need is for a generalized IPv6 support (and IP permanent ISP=20
independent number for every man/woman/kid, organization and service, and=
=20
for all their endbox interfaces, sites, applications) through a transitio=
n=20
from the current NRO IPv4/IPv6 deployment, to a worldwide salability.

>By contrast, IPv6, like 3G mobile, has nothing worth getting access to;=20
>they are just bits of technology with no applications worth accessing.

Oh! yes, there is one: you and me. A stable global network opens the worl=
d=20
to the world. The IPv6 IPv4 extension has no problem in supporting it if=20
adequately  supported.

>Have a look at models of the adoption of technology.

Here is where is the problem. IETF - and it is its job - looks for new=20
services, technologies, management rules and procedures to accompany the=20
convergence of IPv4 into a fully deployed IPv6 (but its job is not that=20
deployment). The problem is that the current routing oriented allocation=20
system is an initial deployment approach. We need now a stabilized fully=20
scalable management directory based allocation approach. But this will no=
t=20
be carried in one day: we need a transition between them two.

This is why a support coopetition rather than a competition between NRO=20
(RIRs) and a "meant to everyone" intergoverned new IP allocation system, =
to=20
foster cost decrease, better quality and innovation. Obviously ICANN fail=
ed=20
seeing that. I hope the WSIS will come with a solution by the end of the=20
year. But again, this has nothing to do with IPv6, it has to do in reduci=
ng=20
the real digital divide which is between those who have a permanent ISP=20
independent IP address and those who have not.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf