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

[Daniel Trembath]

I fear your plan is far too shortsighted. It fails to take into account 
Cantor's theorem[1] proving that there are an infinite number of 
infinities, and so your protocol, with only an infinite number of 
addresses, seems hardly enough.

dan

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem

On 7/04/2011 11:02 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog