[AusNOG] Who's with me? We need to start building the Infinternet straight away.

[Mark Smith]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:50:03 +1000
Joshua Lehman <extractfx at gmail.com> wrote:

> Who knows where we will be in 200 years. We may have colonised other planets
> by then and require much more IP's then we can imagine now...

Perhaps there should be no fields in protocols at all, so that
they'll never be too small in the future, and the protocol will never
become obsolete! Tonight I've decided to start working on a protocol
with an infinite number of addresses, infinite transport protocols,
infinite hop counts, infinite payload size and an infinite deployment
life. It's called the Infinternet Protocol. We'll use it to build a
replacement for the legacy IPv4/IPv6 Internet. This new network
will be called the Infinternet.

Here's the action plan. I've already completed step 1 and am looking
for volunteers to help with steps 2 and 3. I must warn people though,
there'll be an endless amount of work.

1. registered infinter.net, to use as a legacy IPv4/IPv6
Internet starting point and home page for Infinternet Protocol
development and deployment.
2. develop Infinternet Protocol specifications through the
Infinternet Engineering Task Force.
3. deploy and Profit.

So anybody up for an unbounded deployment challenge?

Thanks,
mark∞the.infinter.net


> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM, jason andrade <jason at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Matt Shadbolt wrote:
> >
> > I'll play devils avocado.
> >>
> >
> > Holy guacamole Batman.
> >
> >
> > I think that's fairly short-sighted. 1000 per person may seem enough now
> >> but
> >> who knows in 30-40-50 years? Nano technology may see us need more? How
> >> about
> >> an IP for every thread on your favourite jacket?
> >>
> >> Obviously there has to be a limit - and I'm sure IPv6 will be enough™ -
> >> but
> >> just because we don't think we'll use them all now, doesn't mean we wont
> >> ;)
> >>
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > I can't remember which conference but there was an interesting talk from a
> > MIT professor who was talking about the concept of virtual networks for
> > every
> > person (IIRC gih was also a speaker) 'on the internet'.  In essence we'd be
> > walking around with our own personal firewalls dealing with all the
> > interactions
> > we'd have with the net.
> >
> > Expanding the idea further to look at the concept of not just a network per
> > device but new networks for interactions between devices (even if they were
> > created and torn down within seconds) and those interactions with other
> > devices - it isn't the number of devices that killed v4 (though it didn't
> > help),
> > it's the exponential rate of interactions we'll see coming that'll be
> > interesting.
> >
> > Which led me to a question i hadn't seen brought up here - does the v4
> > network
> > ever get turned off ?  Anyone brave enough to make some predictions for
> > future
> > historians looking through mailing list archives ? :-)
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > -jason
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> >