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