ETT-R&D Publications E. Terrell
IT Professional, Author / Researcher May 09, 2002
Internet Draft
Category: Informational
Document: draft-terrell-gwebs-vs-ieps-00.txt
Expires November 09, 2002
Global Wide Emergency Broadcast System
{GWEBS vs. IEPS}
The Comparison with Internet Emergency Preference Scheme
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft, and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts
are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsolete by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". The list
of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed
at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Conventions
Please note, the font size for the Tables are smaller than the
expected 12 pts. However, if you are using the most current
Web Browser, the View Section of the Title bar provides you
with the option to either increase or decrease the font size for
comfort level of viewing. That is, provided that this is the
HTML or PDF version.
E Terrell [Page 1]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Prologue : Introducing the Fundamental Requirements
Chapter I: Universal Protocols; The Standardization for Announcing and
Communicating Alerts: GWEBS vs. IEPS
Chapter II: 'The Second Wave of the Internet; The Globalnet', Mandates a
Hierarchical Structure having Multiple Backbone Connections
Chapter III: Security Considerations
References
E Terrell [Page 2]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Abstract
This paper Discusses several points Lacking in the presentation of the
IEPS Specification, and Condemns others as unwarranted mandates, which
defines the Internet and its use as a Vehicle for WAR. The Alternative,
'GWEBS', develops is a more realistic foundation that supports saving
lives (Addressing the Concerns of all People in General, Regardless)
during the Occurrence of some Catastrophic Event, which is the mandate it
maintains regarding the Implementation of a Uniform Universal Protocol
that is the foundation for the 'Global Wide Emergency Broadcast System'
that is used to Protect the lives and Livelihoods of all the Inhabitants
of Our Planet. Furthermore, this paper also addresses a more fundamental
concern that requires the involvement of the UN (United Nations), which
would mandate the Implementation of a World Wide Global Internet Backbone
for every Country. The Development of such World Wide Global
Infrastructure (A Global System to be sure) would guarantee uniform Access
for All People, and would establish the necessary Foundation,
infrastructure, as would be required for any Global Wide Emergency
Broadcast System (GWEBS) to work.
In other words, this paper supports the belief that Information, and the
exchange or the sharing related thereto, is just as important as the
Sustenance Consumed, which indeed, is the Vital Necessity used to sustain
Life itself.
"This work is Dedicated to my first and only child, 'Yahnay', who is;
the Mover of Dreams, the Maker of Reality, and the 'Princess of the
New Universe'. (E.T.)"
E Terrell [Page 3]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Prologue : Introducing the Fundamental Requirements
'The future, which we can not actually predict, seems to suggest; "The
Collective Unification of Humanity." And Requires, if not Mandates, the
Elimination of Barriers Denoting Mankind's Distinctions: e.g. 'Religion',
'Cultural Behaviorisms', 'the Economic Requirements to support Life',
'the Adjectives Defining the Insane Jealousy for the want of the
Attributes Belonging to Another', and the 'Diversity in the Language(s)
used for Communication'." Needless to say, there is only one alternative
representing this grim Reality, which excludes any possibility for the
existence of a Grander Scheme of Choice, and that would be to either
accept change, or suffer the Enviable Fate of Extinction. This road,
which might seem an unlikely Reality, is indeed a Sculpture of Stone,
that is Carved and Re-Carved every awaking day that someone has, or
develops, a New Technological Idea. And which moreover, ascertains an
undeniable creditability from the analogy depicting the 'Momentum of the
Stone Rolling Down Hill', which represents the Constant Activity, the
Cycles of Life and Death, in an ever Changing Universe. And while these
comments might evoke a Debate, which would be well beyond the objectives
outlined herein. I am confident that we would all agree, the Internet is
indeed 'A Stone Carving', whose present foundation bridges the 'Gap'
between the many Distinctions denoting Mankind's Diversity. And while I
would be hard pressed to label the creation of the Internet as a work of
Art. It is without question, a technological Idea, whoÆs foundational
beginnings arose from the objectives of WAR ... Hence, the Stone Carving
that has been Re-Carved.
And Perhaps, the People of the World are not civilized (Enough), in any
sociological respect, which would allow the Standardization of some
Globally acceptable description for the Communication of an Alert /
Warning depicting an Emergency. However, if ever there is a hope for the
mutual exchange of Ideas, the realization of the existence of a Global
Community, or the Survival of Mankind in General. Then the only approach
to having such a stabilization, and the elimination of the Primitive
Mindsets, is through the Stability brought about by the implementation of
Global Standards. This would clearly represent the beginnings of the long
Journey; A Time Table monitoring the completion of the foundation, which
established the Direction fostering the Unification of Mankind. And while
I can not provide an easy road, nor offer any Magical Solutions, I can
make a contribution to the beginning...(e.t., 2002)'
E Terrell [Page 4]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Chapter I: Universal Protocols; The Standardization for Announcing and
Communicating Emergency Alerts: GWEBS vs. IEPS
Nevertheless, to build upon and strengthen the current foundation for
the Internet, this chapter expounds upon a Proposal, which is a Universal
Protocol, whose underlining foundation support the survival of all
Humanity (the deliberation derived from a former work from which this
presentation is said to emerge [2]). Furthermore, while there was a
mention of several Technological Innovations, which encompass the
development and discovery of the IPtX Specification, none were explicitly
stated as being Universal. To be sure, as noted in the 3 examples given
below, while there is no actual announcement of the need for their
Universal Specification. It should be understood, in order for these ideas
to work, and maintain the significance of the survival of those directly
impacted as a result, their implementation would have to be Universal.
1. Real Time Monitoring of the 'Black Boxes' used by the Airlines to
Monitor Voice Communications, and Aircraft System Functions.
2. LNAV: Land Navigation Control System, Devices located on the
ground, which would provide Navigation Control and Geographical
Location Information, to free up Satellite Transmissions that could
be used for: Guidance and Flight Control of Airplanes during
Emergencies; To provide Communications in Remote areas where
Cabling is not possible; Airlines Blackbox Monitoring; And to
provide an Overall Back-up, for the 'Global Wide Emergency
Broadcast System' (or GWEBS).
3. The Location of a Cellular Emergency Phone call, could be done
using the MAC Address of the Cellular Phone in a Triangulation
established with 2 or more LNAV (implanted) System Units (Devices).
This procedure would also work using the MAC Address of the
Cellular Phone, GPS, and 2 or more Microwave Communications (Which
are used in Cellular Phone communications) Antennas. (The Good News
is that, as soon as anyone Dials '911', the entire process would be
triggered automatically.)
E Terrell [Page 5]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Notwithstanding the philosophical beliefs, which introduced this chapter,
and the desire to focus upon the enhancement of this Technological Idea
Pool. However, since there has been others, whose work focuses upon the
development of An Emergency Broadcast System, which was one of the
Technological Ideas derived in the foundational work from which this
presentation was derived[2]. I shall focus upon those issues, which were
cited in "IEPS Requirement Statement" [11] to ascribe a comparison
contrasting the foundational development, whose resulting bases, it
sincerely hoped, will help to derive the specification as would be
required for the development of a Universal Protocol for a
'Global Wide Emergency Broadcast System' (or GWEBS).
Where by, the highlights from the "IEPS Requirement Statement" [11] paper
are as follows:
"IEPS Requirement Statement":
1. Introduction: Some countries have deployed a telecommunications
access service to expedite emergency services...
there is interest in creating a similar service in
the Internet.
2. GETS - Government Emergency Telecommunications Service:
A. Specified Telephone number and presenting a Credit-Card
type of Authentication
B. Call is Completed on Preferential Basis; GETS having priority
C. If fundamental telephone services are compromised, services
contracted under GETS are restored first.
3. GETS calls receive priority treatment over normal calls through:
A. Trunk Queuing, Trunk Subgrouping, or Trunk Reservation
B. Exemption from Management Controls used to reduce network
Congestion
E Terrell [Page 6]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
C. ANSI T1.631-1993; High Probability of Completion Standard
1. National Security and Emergency Preparedness
2. Priority signaling
3. Alternate carrier routing
4. Internet Emergency Preference Scheme (IEPS)
A. Secure IEPS identification allows authentication with ISP
B. Preferred Access to Voice on IP and data services
C. Internet access is compromised, IEPS are restored first
D. Standard Hardware Config used by emergency personnel may
be used with any IEPS network
5. Fundamental Internet Access Service provided under IEPS is not
necessarily different from other Internet access service
6. During Times of Emergency, the Contracted Services are available
to IEPS-authenticated personnel: if they are available to anyone,
and that the ISP treats provision of those services as of greater
immediate importance than provision of those services to other
customers
7. Any IEPS-Contracted ISP, equipment is configured before
deployment
8. Services Contemplated in the IEPS: VoIP, Shared real-time
whiteboard, Instant messaging, dbase as the Japanese "I am
Alive", email, ftp, www, and dbase calendaring system
9. Issues in the IEPS; Services a candidate for outsourcing
10. Point of Confusion; issue of "priority", mismatched
language and concepts, deployment of services, IEPS are
targeted for deployment over the Internet and ISPs
E Terrell [Page 7]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
11. Security; Protecting IEPS from Childish Meanderings; the New
Front of Electronic warfare
Perhaps, the greatest failing of the 'IEPS' Specification, is that,
it is Dependent, which means its Security and reliability can always be
Compromised, even from within a Selectively Chosen ISP. Furthermore,
it is a Grave Mistake to consider WAR an Emergency, when the Actually
of WAR, is in fact, the Whimsical Nature of Some Politician, because they
lost face during the game involving Needless Posturing. That is, if some
Politician wants WAR, tell them to Fight, because the Internet is the
'Peaceful Emergence of the Global Community', and not age old Arena of
Death, fostered by the some Insane Ambition comprising Greed and Desire
to Control the People, which is the essence of the Political Ideology.
'GWEBS'; the 'Global Wide Emergency Broadcast System':
'GWEBS', the 'Global Wide Emergency Broadcast System', mandates the
requirement for not only for a Universal Protocol, but the implementation
of the necessary Backbone Infrastructure that would be required to
establish such a World Wide System. However, to institute the World Wide
Standard for the Broadcasting of an Emergency Communication, the
Definitions comprising an Alert, the Task Force providing Assistance, and
the General Rules comprising the overall function of such a System must
first be outlined:
The Basic GWEBS Requirement comprising the Who, What, Where, and Why:
1. Earthquakes
2. Volcanic Eruptions
3. Tornadoes, Monsoons, Hurricanes: The Weather Conditions Affecting
the Overall Life
E Terrell [Page 8]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
4. Tidal-Waves, or Tsunami: Dealing with the Concerns of the Island
Dwellers, are the Issues Concerning
Everyone
5. Meteors Crashing on the Earth: Describing Unimaginable Catastrophes
6. Solar Flares: Disturbances Affecting Electrical, and Satellite
Communications
7. Connecting, Contacting, and Contracting Emergency Response Teams:
The Hierarchical Division for the Respondents
8. Defining the Authority: Who should have Access, and the Rules to
Authenticate Authorized Personnel
9. Notification and Transmission of Emergencies;
Basic and Catastrophic: Dealing with the Public Concerns for the
Individual's Emergency, and the Emergencies
affecting Large Populations
10. Overall System Requirements: Defining the Hardware and Software
Specifications
11. System Security: The inherent Integrity that the System Overall
Maintains
E Terrell [Page 9]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
7. Connecting, Contacting, and Contracting Emergency Response Teams: The
Hierarchical Division for the Respondents
This is a Relative function, because of the Responsibility assigned to
the various Emergency Response Teams. In other words, the function of the
Emergency Response Teams needs to be defined by some person in Authority;
such as the Home Land Security Advisor.
8. Defining the Authority: Who should have Access, and the Rules to
Authenticate Authorized Personnel
This is a Relative function, because of the Responsibility assigned to
the various Emergency Response Teams. In other words, the function of the
Emergency Response Teams needs to be defined by some person in Authority;
such as the Home Land Security Advisor. However, Authorized Personnel could
be Authenticated using Temperature Regulated Thumb Print, User ID, and
Password.
9. Notification and Transmission of Emergencies; Basic and Catastrophic:
Dealing with the Public Concerns for the Individual's Emergency, and the
Emergencies affecting Large Populations
Here once again, this is a Relative function, which needs to be defined
by some person in Authority; such as the Home Land Security Advisor.
However, the GWEBS System should Monitor all Emergency Transmissions.
E Terrell [Page 10]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
10. Overall System Requirements (Referencing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6):
Hardware Specification Requires All of Stations to be permanently
assigned:
1. Emergency Broadcast Stations; Sun Computer having standard
configuration
2. One Super Computer Server Monitoring Entire Network
3. Clustered Sun Servers (4 or More) located in every IP Area Code
Address Location Connected to the Super Computer Server and the
Emergency Broadcast Stations
Software Specification:
1. Operating Systems; Either Sun Solaris, FreeBSD, or Redhat Linux
2. Special GWEBS Application having a GUI Interface
A. GWEBS Software Application Specifications:
1. Listing all Possible Emergencies
2. Methods for Entering New Emergencies with Descriptions
3. Connecting, Contacting, and Contracting Emergency Response
Teams: emails, paging, Digital Phone, Cellar Phone, Video
Conferencing, Video Phoning
4. Integrated Emergency Broadcast Transmission Application:
using the '001-254:000-254:000.000.000.000/XXXX:XX'.
(That would Delay, Cancel, or Void all other Transmissions
to announce either a System Wide, Zone Wide, IP Area Code
Wide, Network Wide, and Individual Emergency Broadcast
Notification. But can only interrupt transmission of an
emergency, which is reporting an emergency to any one of
the Emergency Agencies Connected to the GWEBS System. No
lines of communication can be exempt, because a Broadcast
stating: This is an Emergency Broadcast Alert; Press Pound
to here Emergency, or Pound Key to Record Announcement for
later Play back, and for Computer Terminals, only the
Message would be Displayed with information telling
Recipient what to do.) (See Table 7, Internet Protocol t2
Address Space [1])
E Terrell [Page 11]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
5. Types of Response Listings: Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions,
Tsunami, etc
6. Response Teams Contact Listing: FEMA, Police, FBI, Medical,
Fire, Search and Rescue, National Emergency Response Teams,
etc
7. Contact Response Teams Departments Listings: National
Emergency Office, Governmental Contacts (Local, State,
Federal, and Military) Fire, Medical, and Police Departments
8. Contact Response Teams Supervisors Listings: db of Personnel
9. Visual Display having Satellite Tracking and Visual
Reporting Capabilities
10. Customized Oracle dBase having Automatic System Daily Backup
to a DVD Jukebox Recorder via Centralized Supercomputer
Controller (Or a Pluggable IBM Crystal Laser Read/Writer
when available) which would Record all interactive Actions
with the GWEBS Application (that is modified with an
Enhanced version of Cisco's discovery Protocol, which would
Record the Location, Identify User, and Announcement to All
Stations of the Notification of an Emergency Broadcast
Transmission by any station connected to the GWEBS System.
The Additional function would be a Status Check to be
performed on all Stations, on a Timed Bases, which would
also Notify Emergency Equipment Repair Response Teams in the
event of a Hardware or Software Problem to be replaced or
Repaired, and the incorporation of a System Wide Protocol
lock controlled by Routers, Switches, and Hubs, allowing
only Transmission and Reception from Systems Connected to
the GWEBS System; Hidden Router Transmission).
B. Emergency Transfer of System's Area of Responsibility to
Nearest IP Area Code Emergency Broadcast Station when any
Emergency Broadcast Station is Inoperable (Similar in
function to Token Technology)
E Terrell [Page 12]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
11. System Security: The inherent Integrity that the System Maintains Overall
First and foremost, admitting that there is No such thing as a Completely
Secure System, we can then discuss Security Safe Guards.
1. The IPtX Specification outlines a Backbone Hierarchy, requiring the
Location of Primary Routers, which does imply the ability to Trace
the exact Location of any Transmitting Signal. In other words, the
Topology required would be similar to the used in the current
Telephony Design.
2. GWEBS Requires: Specialized Operating System (IOS) for all
Routers, Switches, and Hubs, that would be specifically Designed
to Hide the Routing and Switching Functions of the IP Addressing
Protocol itself (Hidden Background Routing and Switching)
3. Enhanced version of the Cisco's Discovery Protocol Specification:
Similar to the FBI's Carnivore Application and Check Point Firewall.
Where by, any unauthorized attempt to access or deliver a
Communication masquerading as an Emergency Broadcasting Station,
would first obtain Location of Intruder, or Masquerader, while
displaying a Blue Flash Splash Warning Notification Screen to the
Offender's Computer Monitor, and then Dispatch Federal Policing
Agency to Arrest said Offender. However, upon second Attempt of
such unauthorized activity would result in a Red Flash Splash
Screen that would be permanently Displayed on the Computer's
Monitor, and would electronically the Disablement of the Intruder's
Systems BIOS permanently, and the Dispatching of the Federal
Policing Agency to Arrest Offender.
E Terrell [Page 13]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
+ GWEBS vs. IEPS + :
Clearly both Systems are vulnerable from a Security, and while each system
would have access to the Internet the GWEBS System maintains a Security
Control that makes this system less likely to be the victim of Security
Attacks. Moreover, with the requirements specified in GWEBS System built
in, it use of the Internet would be less likely. In addition to the
requirement of having an IP Address Assigned by IANA, GWEBS outbound
Transmissions are also Assigned by IANA, but these IP Addresses can not be
used by anyone else. And while in the GWEBS System there is a preference
for Direct Backbone connection, it is not an absolute necessity, but it
does provide an added Security feature that IEPS does not provide. Overall,
the GWEBS System is clearly the better System that would provide a more
secure connection, better integrity in performance, greater control, and
more reliable it terms of meeting the specified goals when compared to the
IEPS Requirement specification.
Nevertheless, if the United Nations were to become involved in the
construction of an Internet Backbone (Infrastructure) World Wide, this
would truly become a Globalnet Community, because as it stands, only about
30 % of the World Population has access to the Internet. Even still,
the exchange of Knowledge would prove to be a worth while investment,
because in most of the Countries that lack a Backbone Infrastructure the
cost of construction would be a minimum, and Self-Help is indeed
priceless. This view is considered even more valid when considering that
all of the basic telecommunications operations, or facilities, can use the
Internet as a thoroughfare via Coax cabling ;e.g. Telephony, Television,
Internet, Distance Learning, Medical Emergencies, Police, Fire, etc...
And then, this would free up some of the Satellite Resources, for usage
that could be reserved for Remote Areas, in which burying a Cable 75 to
100 feet below the surface would not be practical, or for Emergency
Back-up of cabled Systems, and special functions, like Real Time Blackbox
Monitoring of Airplane System and Voice Recorders.
In other words, the IPtX Specification is the perfect platform for the
GWEBS System, and the GWEBS System overall, is the better Emergency
Broadcast System for the People of the World. Because for the first time
in the History of Mankind, the concerns of The One, are Now, Everyone's
Concerns.
E Terrell [Page 14]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Chapter II: 'The Second Wave of the Internet; The Globalnet', Mandates a
Hierarchical Structure having Multiple Backbone Connections
Mandating a Hierarchical Structure for the Globalnet, having Multiple
Backbone Connections, is the only way sure to reduce the Router's table
Size, and to successfully introduce Global Standards, such as 'GWEBS'.
Because the present Backbone Structure for the Internet depicts an
Aggregated Mess of wiring, in which the current Cabling Schematic focuses
upon 5 to 9 primary points that are used to connect the Networks in North
America to the Backbone. Nevertheless, it this structure, of the lack of,
which is the primary reason, or cause, for the existence of the large
Routing Tables. It has been suggested, as a means for the elimination of
the Flooding the Router's Tables, to use, or Piggyback ISP, and
Multi-Homing Router Configuration. And while both suggestions might work,
they can serve only a very limited life span, resulting in another
Band-Aid fix. In fact, even with a greater number of active Network
IP Addresses, this is a Organizational Problem, that will not vanish
Until the Internet's Backbone is Organized, having a greater number of
Connections, which would reduce the size of the Router's Table because
there would be less Routes to maintain.
The resolution, as would be concluded from the implementation of the IPtX
Specification, specifically IPt2 Specification, would require at least
'1' Backbone Connection for every IP Area Code Address, '1' emergency
Satellite (Back-Up) Connection for each IP Area Code Address, and at
least '1' Emergency (Back-Up) Connection to every IP Area Code Address
location Bordering an IP Area Code Address Assignment. This structure would
lessen the burden, thus reduce the size of the Router's Table, because
only a minimum number of next 'hop' entries would be required to transmit
a Communications anywhere in the World. In other words, the requirement
for the IP Area Code Router's Table, should never exceed; a list of 2
additional IP Area Code Routers (Not counting the Emergency Connections),
because it maintains a Direct Connection to the Backbone, and the listing
of the location of the '5' Primary Network Routers, which would handle
Routing within the IP Area Code IP Address. And since there is only '5'
Address Classes, this would amount to a Router having a Maximum Table
Size of only 8 Routes. Furthermore, if the Operation, or Job
Classification, of the Routers were more clearly defined, in compliance
with Definitions provided by Table 1, the Interior, or Intra-Domain
Router's Tables would also be reduced in size.
E Terrell [Page 15]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
TABLE 1
Router Function Classification:
Hierarchical Structure of the Globalnet
having Multiple Backbone Connections
1. Global Router: A "OuterCom' router having the dual routing path
capability defined by the Zone IP and IP Area Code Block IP
Addresses (CIODR-FEA). Which is programmed to discern the
differences in data types, capable encryption and decryption of
data, and would route the data by either stripping the Prefix Code
or transmitting the data to the next router governing the
destination.
2. Internetwork Router: A "OuterCom" router having the dual routing
path capability defined by the IP Area Code Block IP Address and the
First 16 Bits defined the Subnet Identifier of the 32 Bit IP Address
Block (CIODR-FEA). Which can also be programmed to discern the
Differences in data types, capable of routing encrypted and
decrypted data, and would route the data by either stripping its
associated Prefix Code or would be By-Passed for direct routed
transmissions.
3. Network Router: A "BridgeCom" router having the dual routing path
capability defined by the First 16 Bits of the 32 Bit Block IP
Address and Routing by Octets defined by the Subnet Identifier of
the 32 Bit IP Address Block (CIODR-FEA). Which can be programmed to
discern the differences in data types, capable of routing encrypted
and decrypted data, and would route the data by using its defined
functions or transmitting the data to the next router governing
intended destination (CIODR-BEA).
4. DIRECT-PPTP: An InterCom / OuterCom Transmission, which can be Routed
with IP Address intact to establish a direct Secure Peer to Peer
Conference on a OuterCom, or InterCom Communication.
5. CIODR-FEA: A Classless Inter/Outer Domain Routing Technique, which
routes using, First or Second 8 Bits, of Front End of the 48 Bit
Address Blocks comprising the Zone IP, IP Area Code, and the First 2
Octets of the 32 Bit Address Block. (FEA = Front End Address)
6. CIODR-BEA: A Classless Inter/Outer Domain Routing Technique, which
routes using the Back End of the 32 Bit Address Block, that comprise
the last 2 Octets. (BEA = Back End Address)
7. Inter-Domain Router: A "InterCom" Router is the first link outside
of a Private Network Domain.
E Terrell [Page 16]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
8. Intra-Domain Router: A "InterCom" router that is use within a Private
Network Domain, and it is used to Route either InterCom or OuterCom
communications.
In other words, Creating a Hierarchical Structure for the Backbone, and
the Sub-Connections (Down to, But not including Network Domains)
comprising the Globalnet Transmission Stream, would result in a definite
performance boost and a reduction in the size of the Router's Table. But,
this would only represent the first step in the overall increase of the
Efficiency Rating of the Internet. However, providing a greater number of
individual backbone connections, (where these connections would actually
represent groups of Network Domains; Counted in the hundred of thousands)
and requiring a greater specificity regarding the functional purpose, or
designation defining the Roles of the Routers, would result in a
substantial decrease in the size of the Router's Table, and a substantial
increase the overall efficiency of the Internet itself.
Hence, any reduction in the Size of the Router's Table requires more
than just additional Backbone Connections, and using Routers having a
specified routing function. It requires, in addition, a Re-Thinking of
the Organizational Structure of the Internet, which would result in the
building, or configuration of a Hierarchical Structure representing the
Nesting of the Sub-Connections connecting to the thoroughfare of the
Backbone. Furthermore, while these considerations may not be an absolute
necessity now. If however, the Entire World, with each country and a
sizable portion of its respective population were connected to the
Globalnet, then the suggestions presented would become a mandatory
requirement for the Internet (Now, the Globalnet) to function. (See the
Index of Table 7; [1]) Nevertheless, while the IPv4 or the IPv6
specifications, does not inherently provide an accurate picture of this
Reality, or any feasible method(s) to Mathematically Network the Entire
World, which would allow the visualization of the Problems concerning the
Routing Tables and the Backbone Connections. The Addressing Schematic for
the IPt2 specification however, maintains a Mathematical Simplicity, which
allows not only a depiction actually showing the Network for the Entire
World, (by Continent, Country, and Population; Down to the Individual),
but inherently provides a foundation that makes any Analysis nothing more
than a visual inspection of relationships. And it is from this
perspective nevertheless, that anyone would conclude, the only possible
IP Addressing System that would be more powerful than the 'IPtX
Specification', would be 'IP Telepathy', or 'Thought Communications'.
E Terrell [Page 17]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Chapter IV: Security Considerations
The Security Consideration(s) are novel, in that they pertain to, or
consist in the development of a Specialized Operating System (IOS) for all
Routers, Switches, and Hubs, that would be specifically designed to Hide
the Routing and Switching Functions of the IP Addressing Protocol itself
(Hidden Background Routing and Switching), which are the Communications
(All Functions Related Thereto) that are required by GWEBS. This would
result in a specification similar to the current specification maintained
by IANA, which blocks the used of certain IP Address from being used by
either the Router or the Routing Protocols.
The implementation of an additional function in the enhanced version of
the Cisco's Discovery Protocol Specification, which would be Similar to
the FBI's Carnivore Application and Check Point Firewall. Where by, any
unauthorized attempt to access or deliver a Communication masquerading
as a Emergency Broadcasting Station, would first obtain Location of
Intruder, or Masquerader, while displaying a Blue Flash Splash Warning
Notification Screen to the Offender's Computer Monitor, and then Dispatch
Federal Policing Agency to Arrest said Offender. However, upon second
Attempt of such unauthorized activity would result in a Red Flash Splash
Screen that would be permanently Displayed on the Computer's Monitor, and
would electronically the Disablement of the Intruder's Systems BIOS
permanently, and the Dispatching of the Federal Policing Agency to Arrest
Offender.
E Terrell [Page 18]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
References
1. E. Terrell (ETT-R&D Publications, April 2002) "INTERNET PROTOCOL
t1 and t2 ADDRESS SPACE" 'daft-terrell-internet-protocol-
t1-t2-ad-sp-06.txt'. (work in progress)
2. E. Terrell (ETT-R&D Publications, June 13, 2002) "Logical Analysis
of the Binary Representation and the IP Specifications for the
IPv7 and IPv8 Addressing Systems" 'draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip
-spec-ipv7-ipv8-10.txt'. (work in progress)
3. E. Terrell (ETT-R&D Publications, February 2002) "The Mathematics of
Quantification, and the New Paradigm, which Re-Defines Binary
Mathematics" 'draft-terrell-math-quant-new-para-redefi-bin-math-03.txt'.
(work in progress)
4. E. Terrell (ETT-R&D Publications, March 2002) "The Reality of the
Schematic Design of the IPt1 and IPt2 Protocol Specifications: 'It is
Just the Computer's Telephone Number"
'draft-terrell-schem-desgn-ipt1-ipt2-cmput-tel-numb-01.txt'.
(work in progress)
5. E. Terrell (ETT-R&D Publications, August 2001) "The Simple Proof
Supporting the Findings from the Logical Analysis of the Binary System
Which disposes the Logical Dispute fostered by Modern Interpretation
for Counting in Binary Notation"
'draft-terrell-simple-proof-support-logic-analy-bin-02.txt'.
(work in progress)
6. F. Baker (Cisco Systems, November 14, 2001) "IEPS Requirement
Statement" 'draft-baker-ieps-requirements-00.txt' (work in progress)
7. Authors: Scott Bradner, and Allison Mankin; RFC1550 "IP: Next
Generation (IPng) White Paper Solicitation".
8. Authors: E. Rescorla, and B. Korver (respectively, RTFM, Inc., and Xythos
Software; October 2002) draft-rescorla-sec-cons-05.txt; "Guidelines for
Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations" (work in progress).
9. Authors: Chern Nam Yap, Matthias Kraner, and Srba Cvetkovic (respectively,
Seamoby Forum, Predictive AG, and Logica System; Jan 2002)
draft-cnyap-iip-04.txt; "Itinerant Internet Protocol" (work in progress).
10. Schulzrinne (Columbia U., July 2002) "Universal Emergency Address for
SIP-based Internet Telephony" 'draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt'
(work in progress)
E Terrell [Page 19]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002
Author
Eugene Terrell
24409 Soto Road Apt. 7
Hayward, CA. 94544-1438
Voice: 510-537-2390
E-Mail: eterrell00@netzero.net
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (5/09/02). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment
on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation
may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole
or in part, without restriction of any kind; except when such
works are sold without the consent of the Author and are not
freely distributed, and provided that the above copyright
notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies
and derivative works. Furthermore, this document itself may
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
assigns, except that the Author is not bound by any of the
provisions set forth herein, or outline by this Copyright.
This document and the information contained herein is provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE
OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
E Terrell [Page 20]
GWEBS vs. IEPS November 09, 2002