internet++, predecessor of >web (was Re: Disasterbation)

Eugene Leitl (
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:06:25 +0100 (MET)

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 wrote:

> In a message dated 96-12-17 05:53:41 EST, you write:
> << The idea of the Internet breaking down, due to an overload of messages,
> was
> brought up here. I began wondering: if the amount of information the
> Internet can handle at any given time is limited, then won't the price of
> sending a given amount of information through the Internet go up to match
> the
> demand for the limited resources? I don't see how an overload could happen
> if
> as the overload threshold was being approached, the price to send messages
> kept rising, thus cutting down on the length of messages people send, since
> it
> will cost more to send a longer message. Is my theory correct? >>
> It would seem the same thing should work for electrical power but it does
> not. There are still brown outs due to overuse of power. The price cannot
> change fast enough.
> To apply this specifically to the e-mail situation you have to think about
> how much it costs you to send every byte of e-mail. If you're like me, than
> you are paying a set price per month. I could have my computer 24 hours a
> day spewing out snowballs left and right and it would not cost me a penny
> more than my monthly fee. Now, if thousands, or a million people did that,
> the net might crash, although I doubt it.

We need agoric computing, with ubiquitous WSI nodes (dwelling behind the
walls, linked with cheap thermoplastic fiber optics (attenuation much
higher than glass, but sufficient for short-range links), orthogonal
hypergrid connectivity (redundant links, wiring density decreasing with
distance, though fuzzy would do binary offsets into ID space are best:
catches runtime defects, performs well even in highly defective grids,
derives ID from wiring constraints, purely local-knowledge routing),
lightweight routing (grassrouting)). The infrastructure is installed/owned
by you, so you charge for the routing/computational resources (nanoOS must
have nanocash capability) used by transient packets/agents (all objects).

You are both a provider, and a consumer, striving to achieve a balanced
account. If you charge too much (infobahn waylayer?), packets will route
by you, so there is a economic pressure for the hardware to become
cheaper/prices to go down.

If you own a number of meshed nodes, there must be a basic assymmetry
(hardware-supported) catching attempts of exoperversion: a movable
"firewall" (distinction between nodes owned by you/nodes transiently
owned by others).

If you want to reclaim the resources (say, you'd like to watch webTV,
and need additional horspower for video decrunching), you send all
objects a flush message, then reboot the node from scratch, attaching them
to those currently used by you, load leveler then taking care of the rest.


(I hope above minirant made sense).


P.S. BeBox now runs Linux (SMP?). A nanokernel with Linux personality
(not Mach) have been developed in Dresden.

> Dan Hook