Re: FW: Why?
2005-03-14 16:35:45
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
RE: Why?, Michel Py
RE: Why?, Michel Py
RE: Why?, Michel Py
Re: Why?, Noel Chiappa
RE: Why?, Michel Py
Re: FW: Why?,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <=
Re: Why?, Noel Chiappa
Re: Why?, Brian E Carpenter
RE: FW: Why?, Pyda Srisuresh
RE: Why?, Michel Py
|
|
|