[P2P-F] Fwd: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works

[willi uebelherr]

Dear friends,

maybe you lost the old emails. Therefore i send you my proposal to for 
our InterNet to the list of NetMundial, www.1net.org. First the proposal 
self. After then 3 general answers. All specific answers and the 
discussion you find in the open archive from the list at:

www.1net.org Mailing List Archive
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/

I lnow, this is a more technical question. But not only. This because in 
all our technical decisions we transport our value systems, our 
philosophical principles.

many greetings, willi
Medellin, Colombia


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 01:00:13 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: 1net discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works

Dear friends,

from the final document of NetMundial we can see, that this organization 
has no interest to strongly support the self-organization of the people 
for their global communication systems. Rather, institutions are 
installed to continue the principles of monopolization and representation.

Now I want to submit my proposal for a real Internet in this discussion
group.

1) The local networks

The Internet is nothing more then the connection of local, independent
networks. They have at least one server, which is connected to the local 
router and this router connects to the adjacent networks.

These local networks have a maximum of sovereignity and independenence,
because they maintain all the necessary resources and functions locally. 
These local networks are organized by the local people themselves.

2) The inter-connection of local net-works

The Internet rests on three levels.

a) connection of the adjacent local networks
b) the regional network of regional centers
c) the global network of regional centers

The technology is based primarily on directed microwave radio links. The 
components are manufactured locally or regionally.

All types of data are transported. Text, graphics and speech. This
eliminates all separate instances for the data transport.

The transport capacities are symmetric in principle. Thus, each client
can themselves act as a server.

3) The IP address

The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the world
coordinate system. We use 64-bit for global and 64-bit for local
address. Because the world coordinate system WK84 is distributed
asymmetrically, we should strive for a symmetrical system of
coordinates. Maybe it already exists.

The routing (geo-routing) is based on the destination address of the
packet relative to the position of the router. From the distance and the 
angle wc can easy make the decisions.

This eliminates all institutions, which deal with the management of
number spaces and routing. There is no Internet governance more. It is
not necessary.

Conclusions

This concept rests on the responsibility to all people on our planet.
Only if they can operate at a most independently locally or regionally
level, our global communication system can arise. People are important
and not the institutions.

It also follows, that we have to manufacture the hardware components
local and regional self. Any form of incapacitation of people by private 
or public institutions is terminated. But this is only possible if we 
determine the technology itself and organize itself. We do this
according to the principle: Think globally, act locally.

many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 22:37:43 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: 1net discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear friends,

I am very grateful for the constructive responses. In particular, the
critical questions are important. They force us to organize our thinking 
and to substantiate our views.

In this response, I will deal only with the philosophical basis for my
proposal. Some answers are originated from a different orientation. In a 
second response I want to discuss some technical aspects that are
general in nature. Special reviews and questions I want to answer
specifically, as far as I am able.

The background

We can distinguish two extremal poles.
a) we support the desire from all people to a free communication
b) we use the communication requirements in order to realize our own
interests.

To a) I stand and many members of this list.

To b) stay all those for which the current structures and organizations
are important. Be it to stabilize their jobs or to secure their
livelihood in any other form. But it is also important to organize
governance and to try anything that the people in the regions can not
organize independently. And therefore are not in a position to shape
their communication system itself. As part of the many actors worldwide.

As in all questions of constructive design also flow into our principles 
of the design of our communication systems our philosophical
orientations and ultimately determine our methods. We always have to
deal with limitations in the technical possibilities. But from the
contradiction between target and condition arise the driving forces.

This also applies to those for which the needs for communication are
only objects for their money-oriented actions.

In general I formulate the following development principles:
a) massively decentralized
b) massively parallel
c) massively redundant

 From that directly follows that our global communication system rests
on independent local networks. It also follows that the people in the
regions concerned in parallel with the development of technical
components that they need for their communication systems. And it also
follows that the capacity should be well above the maximum demand.

The current restrictions are primarily the monopolization of knowledge
and a specific concentration of technical infrastructures. But these
restrictions have no inherent legitimacy. They are the result of
constructive design.

Where the boundaries lie for distributed and parallel development of the 
necessary technical components, we do not know. But we know that
diversity is an essential prerequisite for a strong development.

We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human
knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is
always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for legal
systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our
individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and
contemporaries.

Because not the needs of the people to free communication are the
foundation in the technical development of components for communications 
systems, but the interests of capital utilization, there are no 
reasonable technological systems. Therefore, we can never make the 
present state of the technology to the basis of our discussion.

Communication is always bidirectional. It also follows that we consider
in our technical terminology the client and server as a unit. In our
direct verbal communication, we also do this. Technically that's not a
problem.

If we treat our connection paths for data transport such as public
roads, which everyone can use, then we immediately see the massive
limitations. Again, there is no technical reason. Always the people in
the local regions make their paths and trails usable for guests.

Communication takes place primarily locally and regionally. In families, 
between friends and colleagues. Therefore, it is natural to organize our 
technical communication systems locally and regionally. This eliminates 
much of the meaningless data transports.

I will summarize it briefly. We focus on the needs. We decentralize and
parallelize our activities for the construction of the components for
our global communication systems. We cooperate worldwide. We help each
other worldwide. We can do this because we have the same needs for a
free communication worldwide.

Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:41:17 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: 1net discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear friends,

for the delay in my second reply I beg your pardon. In this response, I
will discuss some basic technical issues that were discussed in some
answers.

1) The local responsibility for the whole.

In money-oriented, capitalist environments there is no responsibility
for the whole. Only the quantum of money-flows are crucial. The fact
that this discussion is about communication is for that actors secondary.

In user-oriented environments, the whole is always the basis for the
individual. The communication requires the action of at least two
partners. From the interest of a free and unfettered communication for
ourselves necessarily follows the interest in free and unfettered
communication for the other.

2) Geographical or virtual location.

There is no virtual locality. Location is always defined geographically. 
Every person may define their own terminology. Whether they however can 
enter into a communication depends on the willingness of others.

 From the clear determination of a locality follows the clear
determination of the address of a location. It is the geographical
location. And this is only necessary to transport a data packet as
desired from one location to another.

3) Multicasting

With unique addresses no multicasting is possible. It is not the task of 
a transport system for data packets to multiply them. This task will
always have the transmitter.

However, it is technically very easy to activate in regional and local
node dynamic distribution server, which then multiply a package for
distribution. One example is mail distribution or streaming server.

4) Transport types.

There are only 2 types of transportation. Asynchronous and synchronous.
Due to the time requirements of synchronous packets this are preferred.
They are usually smaller. They are like kids who aspire between the legs 
of the adults to the front. Or even like dogs, they will always find a 
way. Even with a large storage of adults.

Within the synchronous packets, we distinguish those for emergency
calls, which are always given preferential treatment. All others have to 
wait.

5) Server instances

We do not distinguish between specific clients or servers. Each node can 
always be both. If two communication partners have the functionality for 
client and server, the packets flow directly from one partner to the 
other. Between are just transport nodes. But these are only interested 
on the IP header. The content remains closed as in a letter.

 From this symmetry of the operators, the requirement for symmetry of
the transport capacity directly follows. And since each local network
also has a central server node, all those they do not wish to maintain
her own server can outsource their requirements. Because the server
management is not a major technical problem, most end nodes in the
network will evolve to Client/Server instances.

Central server structures such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail,
Yahoo and any else will dissolve. They are unnecessary. The data remain
decentralized, as they always are. How we make visible the decentralized 
distributed data on our client, it is entirely another topic.

6) backbones and ISP's.

Such designs are not necessary for us, because they are technically not
required. In the discussion "African take on Net Neutrality" we can see
with what nonsense people play, because they can not construct her
network. They are fence-sitters that are not allowed to go inside. They
have to stay before the fence and can only use a few doors.

7) Transport technologies

In my proposal I pointed out that today's technical limitations can
never be the basis for this discussion. What methods we use has little
to do with the discussion on principles. It is primarily a question of
rational knowledge. It remains free to continue today's nonsense in the
future.

We can look at the technologies for data transport as a global community 
task. This corresponds to their real content for a global and free 
communication system, in which all people in our small world want to be 
involved. Or at least most of them.

8) Mobile communication partner.

Each mobile communication device contacts over a local access point to
the global communication system. And this will not change because there
is a physical constraint for it. Thus, each mobile communications
partner have the global address of the local access point.

Always the same applies to moving equipment. We disconnect and make a
new connection, or vice versa. A simple method.

9) The analogy to the street.

Our transport system for data packets is comparable to the transport
systems on the road. There are community responsibilities because they
are important for communities.

10) State, private companies and Comunas.

In my design, I am guided for the local communities, the Comunas. States 
and private companies are not important, because they are not really 
necessary. Communication always takes place between people and not 
between virtual, not real structures.

Local communities realy exist. States and companies exist only in the
imagination. That's why I do not concern myself with it.

The need for worldwide communication exists in reality. It is a basic
need of people to contact each other, share ideas and experiences. So,
if we omit the foreign interests, eliminate their material bases by
making them superfluous, our action spaces are wide open and freely
accessible to go inside.

A summary.

In our considerations we need to make the focus to that what we want to
achieve. We disolve all dogmas. If we want a world-wide communication
for all people, then we should also make this the subject of our
thinking. With side scenes, we need not concern ourselves.

Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Jinotepe, Nicaragua



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
Datum: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:18:34 -0600
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: discuss at 1net.org <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear friends,

this discussion now focuses on the question:

Direct or indirect addressing in the Internet?

But this question we can answer only if we understand the requirements
of the data packet transport properly.

The transport of data packets is a geographical task because origin and
destination in communication are at different geographical locations.
Otherwise, these questions would not arise. It makes no sense to apply
the methods of internal addressing of CPU's, because it is a completely
different tasks in a completely different environment.

When we realize what to do in order to transport data packets and what
information is necessary so that the packets even reach their goal, then 
it becomes very easy.

Andrew has taken leave with great speech from this discussion.

He wrote:
"Today, on the actual Internet we have, if I am the registrant of an IP
address range and I move my data centre from one location to another, I
make a new announcement and everyone can find me automatically".

Because he does not understand the content of DNS processes, he also
does not know what lies behind the facade of his "announcement". But he
acts as if he would be familiar.

Meanwhile, we have several examples of supposed experts on this list who 
do not understand the contents of that of which they speak.

JFC Morfin (Jefsey) has disappointed me a little. He knows very well the 
history of the Internet, he knows many names. But is this sufficient? If 
we do not develop our own criteria, then it is better that we go to the 
church. Like small child we can run behind the religious dogmas. Luis 
Pouzin put it clearly in his texts to the catenet. Never stand the 
physical requirements in the foreground. At that time the project was 
stopped because the telecommunication companies of the different state 
were afraid of a possible loss of their monopoly position. They prefer 
the X25 protocol.

The main forces for indirect addressing in the Internet are government
intelligence agencies and the military authorities; public or private.
And it seems like their needs were always the most important in the last 
40-50 years. There are not helpful many names of famous people.

Luis Pouzin was also fixed to the indirect addressing. Following of that 
was developed such illustrious names such as "Virtual Geo Network". Each 
person can build such a virtual network if they want. Even virtual 
communities of any kind. But we never allowed to make this nonsense to 
the base.

The same is true for the pseudo-model OSI. Each person can think up to
any models. But models always remain just perceptions. They arise from
the attempt to outline the reality. But the determining factor is the
reality itself and not the idea of reality.

I can only hope that something more consciousness arises in this circle
about the reality. But based on my experience in so many threads in this 
list I have big doubts. At least until the more passive reader
interfere. Then could also Luis Pouzin participate in the discussion.

The geo-routing come today through the backdoor in again. In dynamic
meshnets of mobile devices without local access points, the geo-routing
has proven to be advantageous. Also a military line of research.

Even if that is not the issue here. We should think about, how we can
disolve all kinds of military worldwide. Then we have a lot less
problems in our lives. And not only in the internet.

Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr
Jinotepe, Nicaragua