Hi PHB, I have read through the thread.
I would very much like to have short callsigns that can be used to
unambiguously identify all my (and my friends, and my friends' friends)
devices.
I agree that it needs to be almost free, but not actually free.
Because land grabs, because need to have a small surplus to support the
software ecosystem, and the like.
[I would also find it interesting if we can bring the Chinese-ITU delegation
back into the tent. I am reading Carl Malamud's 1991 Exploring the Internet]
I don't think that we can really give out 7B short callsigns though.
I have many nick names that are used in a variety of contexts, some of which
are loose pseudonym (i.e. many people in some communities know me by the nick
only, and we don't necessarily go out of our way to connect our muggle
names). The number of callsigns needed is more like 30B, if we all have 3-4
nicknames. Add to that nicknames like "mom" and "dad"...
Plus my pets will need nicknames too.
I'm very much into the idea that:
_No renewal fees. Names are sold freehold, not rented_
I come back to: all (nick)names are relative/local:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2693#section-2.6
The actual cryptography and formats in RFC2693 we can replace with CBOR/COSE,
and/or your mathmesh formats.
The way that I would suggest we do this is via allocating IPv6 prefixes to
people. Do people need an entire /64 each? Maybe.
A /32 allocation gives us 4B /64s, which is probably enough to start with,
if we can ask for additional /32s. Or we could ask for a single IPv6/24
giving us 281T or something.
We need this really allocated, because then it fits immediately into ip6.arpa.
Yeah, it's long hard to remember prefix. We already have a variety of ways
to put 128-bit AAAA in forward places. We might need some new RR types so that we
can do relative naming, or we could just use AAAA records.
So "Michael's IETF-Friend-PHB" would be implemented by having
"IETF-Friend-PHB IN AAAA" contain your AAAA value in my tree.
I think that we can do all the append-only, distributed ledger stuff if
desired, but we'd probably do it within a /64. Threshold cryptography for
the win.
The communities of pseudonymonity could allocate their own /64, and people
would allocate their community specific callsign somehow.
What do we *do* with these IPv6? Probably not route them globally.
I expect use of L3 overlays, such as LISP, but also L7 overlays through web
browsers too. Maybe /128 routes via RPL(RFC6550) within the home. Maybe.
The above requires no IETF action, just making nice with a RIR.
It does require some upfront investment in software and marketing.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
