Subject: Re: FW: Why?

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:09:18 +0100

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 paying
>for.  Even if there was noone else on this Internet, even if I never wanted to
>e-mail anyone or anything, there are servers worth paying to access.

Tom,
The formula I use is "value = Sigma (users) Sigma (externets) (n.log(n) - 
µ.n**2)" where externets are the links between the members of a class (IN, 
CHAOS in the Internet) and the group of hosts accessible to a class (partly 
supported in the Internet through views). It can be reduced to "value = 
n.log(n)-µ.n**2".

Steve Crocker documented a good mathematical analysis of the n.log(n) part, 
simple thinking makes obvious (see below) and reality proves for 30 years. 
However, the µ.n**2 correction is the key element to understand a real 
network evolution, and to accompany its development. This because a network 
permits access to a decreasing number of pertinent value added 
peoples/information (when you got a good answer you have less better 
answers available - this is a logarithmic degression) while there are as 
many people hiding them than others - the Metcalf law applies, negatively. 
Reeds' law (2**n) is a theoretical formula for the Angels - you need 
everyone to be of interest and eternity to fully take advantage from it: 
when you consider we are in a polylogue area (to speak to many though many) 
it becomes the big bang formula.

µ is the "noise/confusion/pertinence hiding" factor. when µ = log (n) / n 
we reach the state where the is no more value for the users and the 
externet interest decreases. Managing a network is reducing the relative 
value of the µ factor. But this becomes more difficult as n grows.

>I saw the Internet explode in the 1990s because of web servers, not 
>because n**2 people could now talk to each other, so I think this a 
>general point..

Yes. The web externet grown. But users understood it as an example of what 
the Internet made possible. Realizing it, was just a commercial dazibao 
they partly lost interest (no real decrease the µ factor) while their 
number in increasing reduced the value, hence the blunt decrease in the 
Internet value. New applications and stabilization reduced µ, but spam now 
is increasing the µ factor to a critical level.

The solution is to find new externets to reboost the network. 
Multilingualism may provide 7260 of them. National risk containment and 
intelligence protection permit to motivate people for 192 of them. 
Proximity networks for cities, probably 10.000 of them or more. SNHN (small 
network, small networks) permits to consider billions of externets. Each of 
them with a higher local  value, because of a smaller number of users and 
probably of a lower µ factor (better adequation). Unfortunately, languages 
are not quoted by IAB RFC 3869, the RFC 3066 issue and IDNs do not help 
multilingualims based development, the global vision and the disinterest in 
WGIG do not help nation/local interest support by IETF, lack of market 
feed-backs in the Internet standard process leaves SNHN without real support.

The need is for a generalized IPv6 support (and IP permanent ISP 
independent number for every man/woman/kid, organization and service, and 
for all their endbox interfaces, sites, applications) through a transition 
from the current NRO IPv4/IPv6 deployment, to a worldwide salability.

>By contrast, IPv6, like 3G mobile, has nothing worth getting access to; 
>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 world 
to the world. The IPv6 IPv4 extension has no problem in supporting it if 
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 
services, technologies, management rules and procedures to accompany the 
convergence of IPv4 into a fully deployed IPv6 (but its job is not that 
deployment). The problem is that the current routing oriented allocation 
system is an initial deployment approach. We need now a stabilized fully 
scalable management directory based allocation approach. But this will not 
be carried in one day: we need a transition between them two.

This is why a support coopetition rather than a competition between NRO 
(RIRs) and a "meant to everyone" intergoverned new IP allocation system, to 
foster cost decrease, better quality and innovation. Obviously ICANN failed 
seeing that. I hope the WSIS will come with a solution by the end of the 
year. But again, this has nothing to do with IPv6, it has to do in reducing 
the real digital divide which is between those who have a permanent ISP 
independent IP address and those who have not.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:44:45 +0100

> The solution is to find new externets to reboost the network. 

The Internet started as an overlay network over the telephony networks.
It has been tremendously successful for various reasons and it is now 
even seeking to replace the telephony networks. 

Nowadays, we see a bunch of overlay networks running over the Internet. 
These overlays are developing fast (much like the Internet many years 
ago) and they provide services end users seem to be interested in and 
which they are willing to deploy.

I think it is important to realize that the IETF's mission in the 
networking world has changed and much of the real innovative networking 
work appreciated by the end users is to a large extend happening outside 
of the IETF.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany