Folks are already using disjoint L3 address spaces with elements like load balancers providing the bridge between the public IP space and their own private IP space. I don't know if you could ever sell me on having more than one "main" IP space though, as I don't entirely understand what purpose that would serve, other than massively complicating the process of understanding what it is you are purchasing connectivity to.
See also RFC 1925, particularly sections 2.6a, and perhaps 2.11 :p
Sure, but only if you ignore the specifics and over generalize. As overlaying is fundamental to all client server communications.
https://media.ccc.de/v/sigint10_3821_en_peer_to_peer_communi...
The most frequently cited architectural flaw is the lack of a coherent security design: The success of IP is simplicity/general utility - the ability of the system to support different use cases as a packet-switched alternative to previously dominant circuit-switched telephony systems. This is precisely the capacity of the system to vary service types and levels based upon application requirements. Viewed in this lens, not having a 'coherent security design' is the core feature, not a bug.
many question whether the basic service model of the Internet (point-to-point packet delivery) is appropriate now that the current usage model is so heavily dominated by content-oriented activities: CDNs, content-addressable P2P networks (torrents), and multi-mirror package management databases are all excellent, broadly deployed counter-examples. The fact is, by normalizing packet-switching, IP has made bandwidth so cheap that inefficient distribution becomes a trivialized cost. Again, this is a core feature.
The authors are not arguing against packet switching; they're questioning whether point-to-point still applies when a majority of the Internet is used for accessing content. CDNs aren't cheap, a content-centric network (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking) could substantially increase efficiency.
For the NDN concept, again the whole point of IP is that you can implement it on the same base: Upgrade cost of network complexity: The Internet has smart edges ... and a simple core. Adding an new Internet service is just a matter of distributing an application ... Compare this to voice, where one has to upgrade the entire core. - RFC3439 (2002)
In Trotskyist theory, permanent revolution has a specific meaning. There are two main components:
1. A socialist, proletarian revolution has to occur in a pre-capitalist society (such as Czarist Russia), bypassing the step of a bourgeois, capitalist revolution (such as the French Revolution), which Orthodox Marxism expected to be necessary in such countries.
2. The revolution has to be global, in contrast with eg. Stalin's theory of Socialism in One Country.
Seeing as permanent revolution is 1. not incremental and 2. does not allow for co-existence with capitalism, it seems sort of strange to name this approach after it.
many people wearing che guevarra t-shirts are neither marxist nor especially bolshevik. but they are 'cool' and 'edgy' (supposedly).
Exhibit A: 3 million people died of man-made famine in 1943 for which Churchill is widely held accountable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Similarly, not all Third Reich officers are demonized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_D%C3%B6nitz#Later_years and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#Posthumous_honour...