[ga] Re: "objection to one IPv6 A class per country" ??

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jim and all,

  Excellent response here!  You hit a number of nails right on the head!
Well done!

  It is clear that many folks do not understand or even care about
how IPv6 works except that their privacy and security will be
impeded or lost all together.  This loss or exposure is the main
reason that the USG has now backed off IPv6 as Richard Clark
indicated back in July.

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:58 AM
> Subject: Re: "regardless of race, gender, nationality, or financial means."
>
> > At 15:09 08/11/02, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > >Packets do not contain domain names. The contain binary values used to
> > >route them.
> > >How do you propose to fairly distribute the binary numbers ?
> >
> > I do not propose, I question (I am no IPvSpecialist), what is the objection
> > to one IPv6 A class per country. They do what they want with it, except a
> > few blocks being allocated to commonly agreed types of hosts.
> >
>
> "objection to one IPv6 A class per country" ??
>
> Where does one start ?...to answer what appears to be a simple question...
>
> Before starting, it might be best to make sure what you are saying, you really intend...
>
> 1. "A class" to many people means an 8-bit selector with only limited values in that selector being valid.
> That would seem to indicate that you are suggesting a routed address space management scheme with
> a top-down split at the top of from 0 to 255 directions, with likely only half of those being included.
>
> 2. "IPv6" implies a 320-bit header for starters and 128-bit addressing and a multitude of other
> large and small headers all chained together filling links with bits of overhead and making them run
> really slow in remote places in the world where bandwidth is precious, costly, etc. "IPv6" also implies
> that in the 128-bit address fields you will opt for the "consensus" to put a host-id in the right-most 64-bits
> and likely derive that host-id from some hardware in your PC, lap-top, palm-pilot, cell-phone, etc.
>
> 3. "country" is a loaded word or term. EU has all of the appearances of a country, yet also appears to
> be some virtual overlay on other real countries. People may get confused about what is a country and
> what is not. That same path has lead to the ccTLD charade.
>
> =====
>
> Given those 3 assumptions above, one can start by noting the simple fact which is that 99.9% of all
> Internet users use IPv4 with 160-bit headers on each packet. With all of the fiber in the world and the
> advanced speeds we see, that net is painfully slow. Above, you would be suggesting that all people move
> to a completely different format system, pay a huge price in doing that in terms of speed, and possibly
> blindly walk into the privacy (and security) issues of having their hardware make, model, and serial numbers
> flowing to everyone on that net and then to really make it undesirable, you want to hand the governance
> to "countries" which may or may not exist in reality but may be virtual overlays.
>
> In order to make such a dream as above (desirable or not) a reality, the existing population would all
> have to become convinced to move, and one would have to make the existing resources so artificially
> scarce as to make it very undesirable to stick with the working (somewhat inclusive) technology. If you
> want my honest opinion, you have about as much chance of making that happen as convincing all of the
> people in the world that they need to all move to equitorial regions to save the planet from an energy crisis
> and to allow them all to live in peace and harmony launching space ships from Africa as opposed to
> Florida and shutting down entire countries such as Canada. Good luck...
>
> Getting back to reality, if you want to take a pass at your "A class per country approach", you could assemble
> your 128 (or 256) delegates and then map them to these 256 slots or chairs, controlled by the IN-ADDR.ARPA users.
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
> If you like, you could do that with any of the other 15 levels available in the existing Internet.
>
> 0 - IN-ADDR.ARPA
> 1 - IN-CHAT.ARPA
> 2 - IN-NEWS.ARPA
> 3 - IN-HTTP.ARPA
> 4 - IN-SNMP.ARPA
> 5 - IN-VOIP.ARPA
> 6 - IN-MP3.ARPA
> 7 - IN-MPEG.ARPA
> 8 - IN-FTP.ARPA
> 9 - IN-JPEG.ARPA
> A - IN-IPCA.ARPA
> B - IN-IPCB.ARPA
> C - IN-IPCC.ARPA
> D - IN-IPCD.ARPA
> E - IN-IPCE.ARPA
> F - IN-IPCF.ARPA
>
>       Suggested Application
>       0 - 0000 Legacy, Best-Effort, Etc.
>       1 - 0001 Telnet - (Human Speed)
>       2 - 0010 NNTP, SMTP - News, Mail
>       3 - 0011 HTTP - World Wide Web
>       4 - 0100 SNMP - Network Mgmt
>       5 - 0101 Audio - Telephone Quality
>       6 - 0110 Audio - CD Quality Stereo
>       7 - 0111 MPEG - Video Motion
>       8 - 1000 FTP - Bulk Data, FAX, etc.
>       9 - 1001 JPEG - Video Stills
>       A - 1010 IPC - Cluster Processor A
>       B - 1011 IPC - Cluster Processor B
>       C - 1100 IPC - Cluster Processor C
>       D - 1101 IPC - Cluster Processor D
>       E - 1110 IPC - Cluster Processor E
>       F - 1111 IPC - Cluster Processor F
>
> ======
>
> If you take this approach, you INCLUDE all existing users (except those behind firewalls), which means
> you have a base of support. In the IPv6 "A class" approach, you suggest, you start by saying that no one is
> included, you EXCLUDE, and then make it more exclusive, and you suggest that as a solution to counter
> a small club of cronies who have been excluding people since high-school, as they claim they are building
> a net that includes everyone ? What's wrong with that picture ?

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html