[ih] 'internet' and "Internet"

[Jorge Amodio]

That is correct, we are working on some architectures where we will see
local deployments of IP based networks (most probably IPv6) on planetary
bodies, where those networks may look "isolated" from an IP point of view
but it will be the "same" Interplanetary Network from a BP point of view.

We may have some satellite links with no IP connectivity but using link
protocols from CCSDS.

There is also an active conversation and work on a draft on the IETF DTN-WG
about encapsulating BP directly on Ethernet frames, this will be of great
application for example on local satellite/lander buses that are using GigE
switches to interconnect different sections of the spacecraft, removing the
IP layer will reduce the burden on having to assign extra address, deal
with protocol layers, etc.

My .02
Jorge

PS BP != IP
Let it Bundle


On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:23 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Interestingly, discussions about the interplanetary internet lead to
> isolated internets using IPv6 but in a way that does not lead to duplicate
> assignments (so later interconnection of isolated internets on the Moon or
> Mars, for instance, will not have IP address conflicts). Interoperation
> across the solar system uses the Bundle Protocol Suite. Email addresses are
> intended to work and even some aspects of WWW may work (RESTFUL interfaces
> but not the usual link-filled web page). So Lyman's observation might match
> this likely evolution.
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:21 AM Lyman Chapin via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
> > >
> > >> You know, sometimes it's time to let go.
> > >
> > > We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an
> > > 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we
> > _needed_
> > > a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am
> > under
> > > the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which
> > are not
> > > connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note
> that
> > one
> > > can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.)
> > >
> > > Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the
> > > Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are
> 'on'
> > the
> > > Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly
> > > un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the
> dawn
> > of
> > > time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet
> > could
> > > often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on'
> the
> > > Internet?)
> >
> > December 1991 probably qualifies as “the dawn of time.” I still like the
> > suggestion we made at the first IAB Architecture Retreat (see RFC 1287):
> to
> > stop talking about connectivity (“I can ping you”) and talk instead about
> > naming (“I can identify you using the same namespace in which I am
> > identified”).
> >
> > We propose instead a new definition of the Internet, based on a different
> > unifying concept:
> >
> >        *    "Old" Internet concept:  IP-based.
> >
> >             The organizing principle is the IP address, i.e., a common
> >
> >            network address space.
> >
> >       *    "New" Internet concept:  Application-based.
> >
> >             The organizing principle is the domain name system and
> >
> >            directories, i.e., a common - albeit necessarily multiform -
> >
> >            application name space.
> >
> >       This suggests that the idea of "connected status", which has
> >
> >       traditionally been tied to the IP address(via network numbers,
> >
> >       should instead be coupled to the names and related identifying
> >
> >       information contained in the distributed Internet directory.
> >
> > - Lyman
> >
> > >
> > > The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at
> > the
> > > AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people
> > often
> > > speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have
> > stopped
> > > carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a
> > micro-biologist
> > > to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much
> > > equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of
> > > ordinary people use it.
> > >
> > >       Noel
> > > --
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>