Subject: Re: RFC 6592 on The Null Packet

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 09:12:57 +0200

In the Introduction I read

  "Mind you, the Null Packet is not created by compressing a packet until it
   disappears into nothingness."

That is nice, since I believe that doing so would create a "black hole
packet" that would attract and collapse the whole Internet.  On the
plus side, we would not need to worry anymore about IPv6...

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 6:03 PM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>
>        RFC 6592
>
>        Title:      The Null Packet
>        Author:     C. Pignataro
>        Status:     Informational
>        Stream:     Independent
>        Date:       1 April 2012
>        Mailbox:    [email-masked]
>        Pages:      6
>        Characters: 11036
>        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
>
>        I-D Tag:    draft-pignataro-the-null-packet-00.txt
>
>        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6592.txt
>
> The ever-elusive Null Packet received numerous mentions in documents
> in the RFC series, but it has never been explicitly defined.  This
> memo corrects that omission.  This document is not an Internet Standards
> Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
>
>
> INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
> It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
> this memo is unlimited.
>
> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
>
> For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html.
> For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
>
> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
> unlimited distribution.
>
>
> The RFC Editor Team
> Association Management Solutions, LLC
>
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:53:11 -0400

> plus side, we would not need to worry anymore about IPv6...

There's your RFC for next April.

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:33:25 +0100

> There's your RFC for next April.
Of course some theorists believe that all communication links carry a 
continual traffic of Null Packets resulting from the scalar TOS Field 
that pervades the Internet and occasionally quantum fluctuations result 
in pairs of virtual packets (such as ICMP Echo and Echo Responses) being 
created and traveling off in opposite directions.  Normally most of 
these virtual packets recombine without being observed, but occasionally 
they result in unexpected congestion when an encounter with a router 
collapses the superposition of protocol states in which these virtual 
packets normally exist.

/E

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:13:50 -0400

> From: Elwyn Davies [[email-masked]]
> 

And by Hawking's Theorem, due to quantum fluctuations each black hole
packet will emit a radiation of packets (with a black-body spectrum!),
whose intensity will be *inversely proportional* to the length of the
black hole packet.  A black hole packet of any significant length
won't substantially affect a network because its radiation will be
very sparse, but as the packet shrinks to zero length, it will end its
life with a burst of intense packet radiation, causing network
congestion and, possibly, collapse, unless the router buffers are
large enough to store the burst.

I foresee the need of a large government grant to research this
problem.  (See RFC 439 for another vital, government-supported
research project.)

Dale

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:35:47 -0400

>>>>> "Elwyn" == Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]> writes:
    >>> That is nice, since I believe that doing so would create a
    >>> "black hole packet" that would attract and collapse the whole
    >>> Internet.  On the plus side, we would not need to worry anymore
    >>> about IPv6...

    >> There's your RFC for next April.

    Elwyn> Of course some theorists believe that all communication links
    Elwyn> carry a continual traffic of Null Packets resulting from the
    Elwyn> scalar TOS Field that pervades the Internet and occasionally
    Elwyn> quantum fluctuations result in pairs of virtual packets (such
    Elwyn> as ICMP Echo and Echo Responses) being created and traveling
    Elwyn> off in opposite directions.  Normally most of these virtual
    Elwyn> packets recombine without being observed, but occasionally
    Elwyn> they result in unexpected congestion when an encounter with a
    Elwyn> router collapses the superposition of protocol states in
    Elwyn> which these virtual packets normally exist.

What's the real take home for this?

If funding for big-physics projects (like SCC) had been higher in the
1980s and 1990s, we wouldn't have had so many smart geeks looking for
something to do, and the Internet would be much behind where it is now.

(my BSc.Physics 1996 was delayed three years by startup.com)

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:29:11 -0500

On Apr 2, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:

> Of course some theorists believe that all communication links carry a continual traffic of Null Packets resulting from the scalar TOS Field that pervades the Internet and occasionally quantum fluctuations result in pairs of virtual packets (such as ICMP Echo and Echo Responses) being created and traveling off in opposite directions.  Normally most of these virtual packets recombine without being observed, but occasionally they result in unexpected congestion when an encounter with a router collapses the superposition of protocol states in which these virtual packets normally exist.
> 

You're talking about the hard to detect  Biggs Bozon packets as first theorized by Billy  Biggs back in '99 and for which he specified a distributed detection experiment hidden inside NAT traversal procedures?

--
Dean