Newton vs. Einstein
By Dr. Chuck Lynch
Adjunct Professor, George Mason University

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. This book, considered to be the greatest scientific book ever written, provided science the laws of physics for more than 200 years. This scientific paradigm survived until Albert Einstein provided a new paradigm with Special Relativity in 1905. If science had decided that Newton’s concepts were to be the only correct worldview, then quantum, singularity, and the unified force theories would be mere pipe dreams.

Very few people realize that it took Einstein over a decade to develop the General Theory of Relativity, based on sound mathematics. In fact, Einstein was well known for his “thought experiments” to demonstrate his theories. What is a thought experiment? It is the ability to assimilate various conditions in your mind to create a new possibility that can be tested in your mind with simple logic. This was Einstein’s hallmark and a true and tested technique of scientists today.

No technology is truly stagnant and, often, complete paradigm shifts are necessary for new capabilities to be brought forth. We are faced with such a situation today. The Information Technology community is generally of the mind that the current paradigm for networking and end-to-end services is the only worldview. They see new technologies as a simple extension of the current paradigm. They find it difficult to assimilate the various aspects of IT, and to do thought experiments to create a new paradigm.

Many will argue that IPv6 is simply a modification of the IPv4, that it is C++ compared to C, or simply the next step. Some of us believe this is the wrong approach. Rather than the next logical step in the existing paradigm, IPv6 can represent a new paradigm that gives us the opportunity to fix all the problems that have developed throughout the years of modifying IPv4. Keep in mind that IPv4 was not developed for global, commercial use. The leap forward is difficult for some because, while they work with Internet Protocol technologies, they really don’t understand the underlying theory of packet-sized communications and services.

Let’s create a new paradigm. Consider an environment where it is possible to give every communicating entity — either a computer, an interface, or a micro-electronic device — its own unique identifier. Also consider that IPv6 networking addresses could be allocated in a geographical or geospatial configuration, similar to today’s phone switch infrastructure. Add in the capabilities of neighbor discovery and auto-configuration and you have the underlying platform for an infrastructure that will support robust mobile and ad-hoc networking. In this example, consider a hierarchical infrastructure such that billions of networks are connected without overwhelming the router infrastructure.

Each geospatial location is logically assigned a “network” number from higher order IPv6 address bits and end devices are assigned an identifier from the lower order bits. This divides the IPv6 address into two distinct fields, [where am I] and [who am I]. The high order [where am I] bits could be further decomposed for routing and security purposes.

Given this new paradigm, new capabilities will be permitted to emerge. End devices or items in a logistics pipeline or warehouse could be tracked and identified. First responders, from diverse organizations, converging on a crisis area could form ad-hoc networks, and travelers could reach-back to assets in the back office or the home.

The key here is that future communications entities would be ubiquitous, and your ability to reach them would be limited only by your permission to reach them. New associations could be created, permitting new capabilities and functions.

Who would benefit from this new paradigm? Certainly, the United States government and society would benefit due to the emergence of a new efficiencies and a springboard for economic growth. But this new opportunity would not impede all nations from benefiting from the same characteristics. The potential would exist for new “Interstate” and “Inter-nation” highways.

This future will not be easy to achieve. We have to concern ourselves with legacy systems that will operate for several decades. We also have to concern ourselves with path dependencies and organizations that have staked their future on the current paradigm. When the automobile industry was getting started, did buggy whip manufacturers decide to change their product line, modify the horse to compete with the new technology, or simply go broke?

What is the role of government in bringing about this new future? Certainly, we cannot expect nor do we desire a forced solution. We would prefer leadership by example. The government could define the architecture for this new networking and end-to-end application environment, much like it did for the Interstate Highway System. The U.S. government could define an architecture that could be utilized by U.S. government entities as well as state and local governments. Government could help to create functional specification to ensure that there is commonality, much like it has for roads. Have you ever wondered why yellow and white lines are used on all U.S., state, and local roads?

Government could also spur research and development in critical areas, just as it does in other technological areas. No private organization has the capacity to define these functional and logical specifications that will be accepted by all. If the government can define “what” is needed for general-purpose use, then industry can determine “how” it is to be accomplished in a competitive environment. This, I believe, will usher in a new networking and service paradigm that will benefit everyone. Obviously, there are pitfalls. Can a single entity define the potential needs of everyone? This long-term effort would require an integration of government and non-government entities in order to bring about the best solutions. A forum could be established in which various solutions and concerns could be vetted.

Keep in mind that many are satisfied with the current technology and see no reason for change. But this satisfaction is based on the fact that we have nothing to compare the current Internet with. So, conduct a thought experiment and compare the current Internet with a new possibility and I believe the choice will be easy.