| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: IP protocol version 4.5 |
 |
|
IP protocol version 4.5
This is not an official release of Internet Protocol specification.
But it is some cultural proposition.
Preamble.
At the recent days, the Internet Protocol is the one of the protocols
for the technology which provides most of the digital information
services on demand. There are two most known specifications of this
protocol. The first one is known as IP version 4 (IPv4), and IP
version 6 (IPv6). The first of those two is the most used, unlike the
initial problems it has. The second one is called to free digital
services from very same recent problems, and it has the ways for
extension in future after being freed from some limitations. The most
of equipment and software is able to work with IPv6 but there are
little attempts to make a switch on new protocol, because such
switching requires numbers of setting and upgrades to be made at the
same time in the whole world.
The protocol IPv6 helps to solve limitations for problem of streaming
Internet services, low the energy consumed by Internet routers,
improve the quality of their work. And at the end give a solution for
the shortage of IP-addresses for Internet devices, giving possibility
to have such devices as several Internet phones, radios, several
terminals, ect.. And the problem of IP address squatting, is based on
limitations of IPv4, and could be solved by introduction of IPv6 in
common usage. (Because perhaps if all the money of the world will be
spent for IP addresses of IPv6, at the recent price of IPv4 addresses,
there will be widely available free addresses of IPv6.) The matter of
IP addresses squatting makes shortage of addresses even harder, and
and already became an element of digital divide; may became not a
problem with IPv6.
The notation "IP protocol version 4.5", was taken from successful
marketing trick, of the liquid for auto brakes. The liquid was
possessed as number 4 soluble in number 5, and its named was 4.5 as
between 4 and 5, or as 4 with half. Which was not a specification
name. Since this trick helped to replace the liquid, perhaps it may
help to replace the obsolete protocol with newer.
Description.
The offered way of replacement proposes several ways to have benefits
of IPv6 with actual usage of IPv4. Which would require the extension
of equipment of the hardware and software IPv4 with possibility to
switch on IPv6. (For example as some phones had switch between pulse
and tone dial, the new equipment may have a switch between IPv4 and
IPv6.) The offered specification may give partial solution for
problems of IPv4 extending the number of equipment which may resolve
simple switch from OLDER (version 4) Internet Protocol to NEWER
(version 6) Internet Protocol, making such switch not obligatory
simultaneous. As well as devices must not obligatory be personal
computers.
The general idea is based on the principle of sharing the same IP
address by several devices. And the way to distinguish a final device
- on the number of the connection made by several different devices.
But again not in a way of their distribution as field of numbers. But
in a way of unique mathematical ranks produced by each pear, replacing
the values which may be random.
Let assume that in some certain time some device maid some requests
for connection in some sequence. The next device which wishes to make
connection pluses to the respective number of last actual value of
random field of TCP/IP stack some dynamic or static original number,
and it makes its own request, with such fields. The other devices
which may receive packets to this device because of their same IP
address, may distinguish the origin of request from the base of
requests, were they will not be listed as in each case packets for
their own requests. The plussing should be able to be cyclic and
should exclude not permitted values or already take values each of
which in case of their respective lapping of new value should be
resulted in additional plus on module 1 in side to the initial
plussing. The base of such values should have limited life time, and
limited time to be restored from actual present conversation (if no
packet were found in some final time taken values base will count as
some freed). This time should be the same for all devices sharing the
same IP address. The dynamic values should be a kind of pseudo- random
sequence understood by each of devices which share the same IP address
and should be able to be decrypted by each of such devices. All the
devices should have at least same of listed (It only means that other
devices may not only distinguish but also make connection in the same
way, and fist appeared device also not sent to its services or clients
the data not belonged to its activity).
Optionally some ability to send packets from the same IP address, on
the same IP address, to have conversation between devices sharing the
same IP address, to have synchronization of bases and pseudo random
sequences should be present.
Regarding the server functions, if they are resolved by Internet
Service Provider, should be used the next measures. To enable the peer-
to-peer networking, the possibility should be present on the level of
service, where the responded random values should be filled by the
same principle. In this case the peer-to-peer node should certainly
know how to deal with appeared request, in other case it should not
establish connection with services which requested not the certain
device,
when the IP in TCP/IP stack of protocols should provide only IP
functionality. (Most of modern peer-to-peer services may not do this.
How ever this may be enough to provide IP-telephony with several
unique numbers connected to the same IP address.) The usual Internet
servers perhaps may bind the only ones the same port number for all of
the devices on the whole set of devices sharing the same IP address.
(Alternatively, they may continue the principles of peer-to-peer
networking, where the confirmation will be generated by random device,
and request will be processed when respective server software will
recognize such request as its own. However this must be useless
complicity.)
Not properly taken packets and connections - should be processed as
error packets and connection.
To avoid problems with splitters, the actual network protocol which
carry the Internet also may have similar principles to described for
IP. Alternatively they may have splitters which would fulfill function
of media with multiple access.
The IPv6 address field (when newer protocol being switched from older)
should be mapped older protocol together with some device number used
by older protocol. Or being invoked as a terminal for newer protocol
some respective new setting should be made.
Introduction plan.
So to the same point of Internet connection perhaps with very simple
router (or rather splitter) could be connected not only the computer
but also Internet radio, Internet TV, Internet phones, and possibly
some new kinds of devices.
1st step.
The possibility to have very new devices connected to the same
Internet access point being
appeared could offer some proposal of such devices.
2nd step.
Number of appeared devices my suggest to provide for the Internet
Service Provider to have the possibility to switch on newer protocol.
(Because with newer protocol they'll be working much better, under any
circumstances.)
3rd step.
Active switch from older to newer protocol.
4th step.
Full shoot down of IPv4, together with this "IP protocol version 4.5"
The official Internet resource for this initiative is http://DawnON.com/IP
--DawnON.com
P.S. I'm not a specialist on Internet, and actually I was trying to
design several specification and standards of my own network. After I
had some connection with people from the University of Edinburg and
some people from London. Finally I was convinced that it is better to
improve Internet than to design everything from scratch. Possibly some
things of my schedule will be implemented in IPv8.
P.P.S. Since this problem connected with human factor, I posted it in
the group related to the human factor. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Le Chaud Lapin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: IP protocol version 4.5 |
|
|
On Aug 23, 11:49 am, L...@dawnon.com wrote:
| Quote: | P.S. I'm not a specialist on Internet, and actually I was trying to
design several specification and standards of my own network. After I
had some connection with people from the University of Edinburg and
some people from London. Finally I was convinced that it is better to
improve Internet than to design everything from scratch. Possibly some
things of my schedule will be implemented in IPv8.
|
I must respectfully disagree with the "design everything from scratch"
comment. Undoubtedly you are aware that, after almost 20 years of
debating the issue, many prominent researchers in computer networking
have concluded just the opposite, that IPv6 is too hackish, and the
last thing we need is 1,000,000,000+ users running on something that
looks/works like it was hacked together.
Reference:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clean-slate+TCP%2FIP
I am curious to know who were these people who convinced you
otherwise.
| Quote: | P.P.S. Since this problem connected with human factor, I posted it in
the group related to the human factor.
|
Human behavior is definitely a peculiarity of this entire process, and
even the greatest luminaries in this field, IMHO, have taken a
somewhat irrational approach to ascribing priority between:
1. How Things Are (IPv4/IPv6)
2. How Things Should Be (clean-slate protocol).
They have allowed "How Things Are" to cloud their judgement of "How
Things Should Be".
-Le Chaud Lapin- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: IP protocol version 4.5 |
|
|
As one network engineer once said:
"Network protocols come and go" =D
"IPv6" will come and then somewhat later on "it will go"
And something new will come along :)
Bye,
Skybuck  |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: IP protocol version 4.5 |
|
|
On Aug 23, 9:36 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <BloodySh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | As one network engineer once said:
"Network protocols come and go" =D
"IPv6" will come and then somewhat later on "it will go"
And something new will come along :)
|
Yes, but unfortunately, everything seems to be ready to run new
protocol, but not so many people want to make such switch.
| Quote: | Bye,
Skybuck |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: Re: IP protocol version 4.5 |
|
|
On Aug 23, 9:09 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 23, 11:49 am, L...@dawnon.com wrote:
P.S. I'm not a specialist on Internet, and actually I was trying to
design several specification and standards of my own network. After I
had some connection with people from the University of Edinburg and
some people from London. Finally I was convinced that it is better to
improve Internet than to design everything from scratch. Possibly some
things of my schedule will be implemented in IPv8.
I must respectfully disagree with the "design everything from scratch"
comment. Undoubtedly you are aware that, after almost 20 years of
debating the issue, many prominent researchers in computer networking
have concluded just the opposite, that IPv6 is too hackish, and the
last thing we need is 1,000,000,000+ users running on something that
looks/works like it was hacked together.
|
I will not make everything from scratch.
I do NOT need/wish/want to do everything from scratch.
Thay convinced me NOT to do everything from scratch.
Thay connvinced to make better what is present.
Compresion?
| Quote: | Reference:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clean-slate+TCP%2FIP
I am curious to know who were these people who convinced you
otherwise.
|
Thay are very good analysts.
Ones I thought that only one person fulfilled all the prescription of
"Intutut de France" in his spoke. It was after comments one
respectable person, in some documentary movie. But it looks he needed
to aprove he was not English. :)
| Quote: |
P.P.S. Since this problem connected with human factor, I posted it in
the group related to the human factor.
Human behavior is definitely a peculiarity of this entire process, and
even the greatest luminaries in this field, IMHO, have taken a
somewhat irrational approach to ascribing priority between:
1. How Things Are (IPv4/IPv6)
|
How there are deals with IPv4/IPv6?
It looks as big improvement since Compuserve and Tetel (Minitel),
But it looks as there are two way are present
ne is about how it should be (IPv6),
and the second one how it is (IPv4).
And with recent circumstances, everything goes to reach the point of
switch to IPv6, but this moment seams unpredictable and possibly
unreachable. I should convince: the situation looked quite suitable
for me untill I felt some not proper pretension for authority from
those who squatted IP addresses.
(Actually that was a conflict, which could be a dengerous prcedent.
Since it some cleanzing is needed. That is why it is a human factor.
It was also a challenge becuase I was authoring some basic concepts of
policy where in some problem question technical and technological
terms were mixed on suitability of human factor.)
| Quote: | 2. How Things Should Be (clean-slate protocol).
They have allowed "How Things Are" to cloud their judgement of "How
Things Should Be".
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
Trabien'. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: IP protocol version 4.5 |
|
|
<QuasTV@svitonline.com> wrote in message
news:c2495e0f-eea4-42fa-843c-cfae81f00863@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Aug 23, 9:36 pm, "Skybuck Flying" <BloodySh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
As one network engineer once said:
"Network protocols come and go" =D
"IPv6" will come and then somewhat later on "it will go"
And something new will come along :)
Yes, but unfortunately, everything seems to be ready to run new
protocol, but not so many people want to make such switch.
|
Who cares about the people lol.
They don't matter.
All that matters is the internet itself.
As long as it's ready for ipv6 then everything is ok.
If it's not really needed then to bad...
But when it is needed people will flock to the ipv6.
I just checked my isp's ipv6 support.
And it seems my isp is already supporting ipv6.
I can go for example to this site:
http://ipv6.sunny.ch/
Which is supposed to be reachable only via ipv4 ? ;)
I checked with ethereal... and it seems the isp first connects to a peering
gateway.... (via a tunnel) and then on from there it goes onto the ipv6
backbone or so... and finally reaches the website and then communicates back
vice versa...
So all seems nice and well...
I am also finishing up one of my own apps to support ipv6. (UDP Speed Test
3)
It will probably be released tomorrow or the day after that.
It's getting close to release... I just need to fix up some things and then
do so more testing and some websites updates and screenshots and even price
update ! =D
And then people have another app to enjoy ipv6 with... and learn from it...
yes absolutely..
I think my tool will be a good tool to learn ipv6 addressess with and so...
and play a little bit with it..
It's definetly better than nothing ! ;)
Unfortunately for the cheap skates... they can't play with it... you need
activation code for ipv6 support  * ;)
It just happened to be like that LOL =D
My advice for everybody:
Start playing with ipv6 now that you still have the time for it... you can
now start playing with it... without problems and time pressure I hope for
you at least...
When the shit does hit the fan you wanna be ready =D LOL.
Bye,
Skybuck. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Digital Mercenary For Hon
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: IP protocol version 4.5 |
|
|
On 2008-08-23 12:49:58 -0400, Look@dawnon.com said:
| Quote: | IP protocol version 4.5
This is not an official release of Internet Protocol specification.
But it is some cultural proposition.
|
Thank you for having the courage to toss in your ideas into the ring. I
think technologists & folks that aren't so directly involved with the
technology behind IPv4 networking can agree that the IPv4 protocol and
the technologies bundled it have become an integral and important part
of human life. We can't rip it out now - we can come up with spot
examples of how we could do without, but those are impractical on a
world economy that depends on IPv4 continually working, so having
cultural input and non-technological input might be foreign to us
techies, but it's a good step to have people from "outside" the regular
engineering concerns to have a look in - I have a practical example of
this that taught me long ago to seek and include this type of input,
especially in interface engineering. An art student who had a bit of a
mathematics background gave us techies a lesson in how painters use
perspective to draw your attention to certain details in their art. We
included this in interface design for real-time packet flows and
watched, with bemused amazement, how people looked where we wanted them
to and could fine-tune that for themselves.
Anyway, back to IPv4, and "IPv4.5".
My only two cents here is that we need to look at history for a
reasonable approximation of success, here's some examples:
- Nature branches off many evolutionary trees, like experiments. What's
needed and successful survives, not what's "technically correct". As
engineers / scientists, we should be striving to combine what's needed
with what's technically correct to the extent possible - we all have
"no go" points where we understand making fundamental change would
cause too many issues. However, using forward progress as a "re-write"
tool rarely, if ever, works.
- Look at things that "stuck" - SSH stuck, and its adoption rate was
pretty quick eliminating TELNET out there as the default login utility.
There were years of groaning, but a combination of what was needed
(secure access, less hacking) with what was technically correct
(encrypted logins), succeeded. The *BSD folks I think were the first in
pushing the edge by removing TELNET from default distributions, etc.
- SPF, DKIM and other anti-spam attempts haven't been so successful so
far. They are partially what's needed, and the argument over whether
they are technically correct rages on. Many people want an SMTP /
e-mail "re-write". Unless there's some stellar new feature that can be
offered over e-mail everyone wants creating the need for everyone to
re-write RFC821, not going to happen. DKIM using DNS, might be an
answer since it doesn't require a re-write, and with SPF, you know
e-mail should come from (x) address and can be signed with (y) key. I'm
not adovcating anything, just showing an example of how things don't
work out sometimes.
I'm not convinced we need IPv6 today, I'm just not. I know we'll need
more IP addresses eventually, I like some new features of, but it's
been around for almost 10 years now too without huge traction, maybe
something will push it over, maybe the Japanese fervor for it at the
ISP level will spill over. Maybe the US is the last bastion of IPv4,
refusing to change, and for good business reason. Regardless, it's
nature's step - evolutionary - we'll see if the new DNA people are
proposing, sticks.
We need to be good stewards, like Jon Postel was. I think us old-school
techies are good at choosing things that are technically correct, but I
think we all could pay attention a bit more to what's needed, seeing
the reward for that as potential faster adoption of "fixes" or
"fundamentals" we keep groaning about over beer.
/dmfh
--
_ __ _
__| |_ __ / _| |_ 01100100 01101101
/ _` | ' \| _| ' \ 01100110 01101000
\__,_|_|_|_|_| |_||_| dmfh(-2)dmfh.cx |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
