Re: New Internet Draft on automatic (end-user) tunneling for SSM

[Dirk Ooms <Dirk.Ooms@alcatel.be>]

and we will have communication without delay by applying the EPR paradox
:-)

Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> 
> In message <3A9E5A41.813E3D0E@21rst-century.com>, Marshall Eubanks typed:
> 
>  >>I still do not see how auto tunnels will scale. If my tunnel relay's will only accept a fan-out of 2,
>  >>then to serve 2048 people will require 10 generations of tunnels (and about 1000
>  >>tunnel servers).
> 
> assume that we have the same limit roughly as with the old mbone
> mrouted tunnel overlay - was fanout of 6 as far as i recall...
> its still, as yo usay, a problem - in fact, the exact place you want
> this (at an ACCESS ISPs dslams etc) is where you wont get it...
> 
>  cheers
> 
>    jon
> 
> i am a big fan of quantium computing - quantum computing allows n bits
> to store up to 2^n values _simultaneously_ :- with quantum computing,
> IP multicast becomes much simpler, and ipv6 becomes obsolete...
> you can simply address all the end systems in a group using
> all their seperate IP unicast addresses, but it takes no more bits
> than a current IP header.
> 
> of course, you need a $1M MRI/interferometer in all your routers to
> sort out the packet entanglement, but hey, thats today's prices;
> when quantum internet addressing and routing meets optical switching
> the world will be a safer place, probably. a neat side effect of
> quantum ip (quip, TM) is that we can employ schroedinger's approach to
> mesage payload encoding too, which means that the fbi's carnivore
> systems won't be able to decode what we've sent (well they will, but
> they will have _chosen_ what to observe by observing it, so it can't
> be used as evidence in court about what we did send) - feynman said it
> all of course.