[e2e] Discrete IP - retake
Pars Mutaf
pars.mutaf at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 20:06:30 PDT 2012
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Arun Welch <welch at anzus.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
You don't question anything but sooooo sure about yourself.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashdeep_Aerostat
We also have aiplanes, drop many many satellite phones to the disaster
area. They are too cheaper than bombs.
This is an education problem.
> ...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
>
>
>
--
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120920/7a727793/attachment.html
More information about the end2end-interest
mailing list