[e2e] Discrete IP - retake

Arun Welch welch at anzus.com
Wed Sep 19 09:38:18 PDT 2012 

Having actually done disaster relief  on a number of occasions I can assure you that 72 hrs is extremely optimistic for anything beyond simple triage even in first-world situations. Even when the relief has been pre-staged it takes time to clear roads, etc. Helo's have very limited carrying capacity. 

...arun



On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:40 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:

> Sorry I don't believe this. I continue to question everything. 
> 
> I don't believe that there is a 72 hours delay. We have helicopters, etc. If there is an 
> unacceptable delay, the right approach is to invest on decreasing this delay because 
> communication is not the only problem in a disasters scenario. People need food, water, 
> etc.
> 
> Do some meditation and ask yourself the *real reason of these publications*. It took
> me 5 years to see the naked truth. 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Jon Crowcroft <Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> If you take a little while to read the literature on disasters,
> you will know that the typical delay before the emergency services
> arrive is approximately 72 hours.
> 
> A ver good text if you want a summary of many
> real world disasters is this book
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0670021075
> 
> The use of MANET (and in extreme low connectivit cases, DTN)
> is better than nothing.
> 
> vehicular use of infrastructure is expensive - car-to-car networks
> are clearly a very good way to get high capacity low latency data
> _along_ the higheay, especially in rural areas where incentives to
> deploy a lot of infrastructure is low right now.
> 
> of course, you are right that the miltary don't tell us anything,
> except they funded the Internet, through DARPA (D=defense) and
> told Berkeley to release the BSD source code for TCP/IP which led
> to a public free, unencombered high quality code base for everyone
> to learn from, so yes, as usual you're right and I dont know
> anything
> 
> In missive <CACQuieYE2E_3dr55Gvi0yuZm+w0CG+KzK4G=1ZXwdcz+wqnkwA at mail.gmail.
> com>, Pars Mutaf typed:
> 
>  >>
>  >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jon Crowcroft
>  >><Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> in a typical disaster scenario, many of whuch have been studied in
>  >>> great detail,  people have to make do with resources they have to
>  >>> hand
>  >>>
>  >>> they may be spread over a large area (e.g all of indonesia, japan,
>  >>> california) and not be prepared with giant ballons as you desribed
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>Preparing the balloons is not the users' task of course.
>  >>
>  >>Organizations like red cross will prepare them.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> what many DO have is phones and laptops.
>  >>>
>  >>> manets can be usefully built out of these.
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >>MANET may not work for isolated users in a disaster scenario
>  >>because they are too far away from the rest of the network.
>  >>
>  >>So MANET is not only useless, it has a very low probability to work.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> in a military scenario i menion, your giant ballon idea is a great
>  >>> target for the other side
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>I personally do not argue for the army.. This is not really research,
>  >>because they do obscure things that we do not even know. They can just
>  >>use the most expensive satellite phones. They do not care.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>>
>  >>> in the vehicular scenario i menion, a giant ballon would be a big
>  >>> drag, especially when you go through tunnels and under bridges.
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>Vehicular networks are *unnecessarily dangerous*. Just use the
>  >>infrastructure
>  >>network.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> your move, sunshine.
>  >>>
>  >>> In missive <CACQuieY3JBSFUvL_ugse4VRhT4xofOHyZZdvRHNdt+JzTx6F5g at mail.gmail.
>  >>> com>, Pars Mutaf typed:
>  >>>
>  >>>  >>--20cf307f39aa2712b204ca091b8d
>  >>>  >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>You do not question enough Jon. See:
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12602.html
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jon Crowcroft
>  >>>  >><jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>> Take the MANET example, sure. Many use cases exist since ARPA Packet
>  >>> radio
>  >>>  >>> days. Battlefield networks, disaster recovery networks, vehicular
>  >>>  >>> networks...some actually in use ad deployed.
>  >>>  >>>
>  >>>  >>> The internet isn't for just one thing.it is, by definition, for
>  >>> anything
>  >>>  >>> we can imagine and realize...it is the union of all communications,
>  >>> not the
>  >>>  >>> intersection of one notion with one technology.
>  >>>  >>> On 18 Sep 2012 17:48, "Pars Mutaf" <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>>  >>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jon Crowcroft <
>  >>>  >>>> Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>>> this is what we used to talk about as the
>  >>>  >>>>> "my problem is too hard even for you" poser syndrome
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>> basically, whenever you offer a workable solution,
>  >>>  >>>>> the poser (of the problem) changes the
>  >>>  >>>>> problem (or the assumptions)
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> No I didn't change the problem:
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> What do we want for the Internet? Did we really ask this question?
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> Take MANET for example, they did not ask themselves what it is used
>  >>> for.
>  >>>  >>>> They cannot explain.
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> I would start a new thread "What do we want for the Internet"  but I
>  >>> am
>  >>>  >>>> not sure if I should do this.
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> Cheers,
>  >>>  >>>> Pars
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>> one of the nice things about IP (and the E2E argument(s))
>  >>>  >>>>> is that it is really hard to change the problem it solves
>  >>>  >>>>> in a way it still doesn't solve, whichever version you choose
>  >>>  >>>>> (well, ok, maybe not IPv5:)
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>> In missive <50589DCC.2030808 at dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker typed:
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>On 9/18/2012 3:35 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>> In missive <
>  >>>  >>>>> CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO+V2XV1tFcP5PgT+Vq2A at mail.gmail.com>,
>  >>> Par
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>> s Mutaf typed:
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>   >>> I encourage you to read the relevant prior work (many
>  >>>  >>>>> pointers were given)
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>   >>Only 1 pointer was given (by Jon Crowcroft), it is not
>  >>> relevant.
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>> it is exactly relevant.
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>in the broader sense of whether this thread has been, or has any
>  >>> hope
>  >>>  >>>>> of
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>being, constructive, it was not relevant...
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>d/
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>--
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>  Dave Crocker
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  >>>  >>>>>  >>  bbiw.net
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>>  cheers
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>>    jon
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>> --
>  >>>  >>>> http://www.content-based-science.org
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>>>
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>
>  >>>  >>--
>  >>>  >>http://www.content-based-science.org
>  >>>  >>
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.content-based-science.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120919/0db9fa36/attachment.html

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list