1. The UNIX pc...@t--n@T--.NET Architecture is Not for Everyone - No Problem

2. A user at a PC sees "Services" and they are a long way from the core .NET

3. The c...@t & n...@t Network Elements can be upgraded, that is designed in
without Truck Rolls.

4. In circa 2010 it is interesting to note that people claim n...@t was
added "to prolong the life of IPv4", that is NOT TRUE in UNIX (00)
Culture.

5. c...@t was ripped off and re-marketed as a J-Thing & then got caught
in browser wars but the Function remains, as the second firewall.

6. c...@t Services may appear to be "Routing" - Example: DHT Distributed
Hash Tables with 480-bit Keys derive those bits from 160x3 or 160+320.

7. Three IP Headers, each with 160 bits, can be used to derive a DHT
Key for the put(Key,Data,Time) Service.

8. In an object-oriented system hunks of bits (like 160) tend to
become common like an 8-bit byte (or octet).

9. Architecture tends to require some sizing and sometimes one has to
choose a size to move forward, 480-bits is a big address space.

10. It is ironic that 480-bits is large but a 6-bit Alphabet or ICON
space turns out to be "good enough" with 64 symbols.

11. It is handy that 480-bits divided by 6 is 80 characters which is a
nice size Key for the DHT.

12. The FREE 64-bit addressing using 12+18+6+24+4 can be coded using
6-bit symbols such as: LL.LLL.L.LLLL.X

13. People that "own" a 4-Letter .COM domain in the US may end up
using US.COM.L.[domain].X.

14. Can the FREE 64-bit addressing be used in 320-bit Headers ? Sure,
and there is room for up to 16 bytes of data also in the unused
128-bit Address Field bits. VOIP sounds make those re-purposed bits
appear to change.

UNIX pc...@t--n@T--.NET Architecture is Not for Everyone - No Problem

===================================
00 - UNIX
01 - ISOC, IETF, IRTF, IANA, ICANN, NANOG, RIRs...
10 - IEEE, FCC, NTIA, NIST, LEOs...
11 - UN, ITU, ETSI...
===================================
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to