concepts: Add paragraph on global address space

1 files changed, 40 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md b/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md
index 50da266..362fd81 100644
--- a/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md
+++ b/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ A first approach is to use a coordinate space for the names of the
 forwarding elements. For instance, if we use the GPS coordinates of
 the machine in which they reside as a name, then we can apply some
 basic geometry to _calculate_ the distances based on this name
-oexanly. This simple GPS example has pitfalls, but it has been proven
+only. This simple GPS example has pitfalls, but it has been proven
 that any connected finite graph has a greedy embedding in the
 hyperbolic plane. The obvious benefit of such so-called _geometric
 routing_ approaches is that they don't require any dissemination of
@@ -480,7 +480,33 @@ of an overlaying unicast layer, and how to disseminate routes in that
 overlay unicast layer is an interesting topic that mandates more
 study[^13].
 
-[UNDER CONSTRUCTION]
+### Do we really need routing at a global scale?
+
+An interesting question to ask, is whether we need to be able to scale
+a layer to the scale of the planet, or -- some day -- the solar
+system, or even the universe? IPv6 was the winning technology to deal
+with the anticapted problem of IPv4 address exhaustion. But can we
+build an Internet that doesn't require all possible end users to share
+the same network (layer)?
+
+My answer is not proven and therefore not conclusive, but I think yes,
+any public Internet -- where it is possible for any end-user to reach
+any application at scale -- will always need at least one (unicast)
+layer that spans most of the systems on the network and thus a global
+address space. In the current Internet, applications are identified by
+an IP address and port, and the Domain Name System (DNS) maps the host
+name to an IP address (or a set of IP addresses). In any general
+Internetwork, if applications were in private networks, we would need
+a system to find the (private network, node name in private network)
+for some application, and every end-host would need to reach that
+system, which -- unless I am missing something big -- means that
+system will need a global address space[^14].
+
+### Dealing with limited link capacity
+
+
+
+[Under construction]
 
 [^1]: In the paper we call these elements _data transfer protocol
       machines_, but I think this terminology is clearer.
@@ -584,4 +610,15 @@ study[^13].
       routing information can be marked with a single bit. This is
       only true in the limited case that there is only one "gateway"
       node in the routing area. In the general case, path information
-      will be needed to determine which gateway to use.
\ No newline at end of file
+      will be needed to determine which gateway to use.
+[^14]:A [paper on RINA](http://rina.tssg.org/docs/CAMAD-final.pdf) that
+      claims that a global address space is not needed, seems to prove the
+      exact opposite of that claim. The resolution system, called the
+      Inter-DIF Directory (IDD) -- it does more than just finding the
+      destination network -- -- is present on every system and has internal
+      forwarding rules to route requests between its node. If that is not a
+      global address space, then I am Mickey Mouse; the addresses inside the
+      IDD are just based on strings instead of numbers. The IDD houses a
+      unicast layer with a global address space. While the IDD is techically
+      not a DIF, the DIF-DAF distinction is
+      [severely flawed](https://ouroboros.rocks/blog/2021/03/20/how-does-ouroboros-relate-to-rina-the-recursive-internetwork-architecture/#ouroboros-diverges-from-rina).
\ No newline at end of file