Yggdrasil Network

Why would you want to remove the IP layer?

Or are you thinking about IP layer, just not on the "internet", but on a separate network? If this, then how do you suggest connecting people together? Mesh becomes innefficient due to mesh routing at larger sizes and sooner or later you just reinvent "your own internet", but not worldwide, because you don't have the resources to actually connect the whole world together.

In order to access the internet you are required to enter into a contract with a corporate entity. That's not because the internet is "theirs" (like Facebook's servers and systems are Meta's), but because the network layer was design with the assumption that companies would do the work of setting up ISPs, core routers, peering agreements, etc.

I'd like to see a P2P protocol that doesn't assume this but instead is designed to be completely decentralized, and anyone running the protocol can join. This protocol would provide addressing routing like our current IP protocol, and TCP/UDP etc can run on top of it. Would this be a separate "internet" or could it have gateways to the proper internet? Preferably the latter. There are obvious technical challenges with routing, addressing, mobility, all in a decentralized way but are they truly impossible?

It's not nearly like that, it's designed that you can build your own, separate networks, before the concept of internet providers even existed (and a few colleges and DoD were the only users). It is completely decentralized (with the exception of DNS, which can be decentralized easily, but isn't).

Setting up networks is easy and cheap. the expensive part is pulling cables and connecting people, that's why many countries have the local governments do that. If you live in an apartment building, you can easily create a separate network for all the apartments. If you want to connect to the next building, you'll need a lot more cables and someone to actually dig in the cable or erect the poles and use those to carry the cable... but who will pay for that? What if you want to connect to the next city over... who will pay for the cabling, digging etc? And of course, the paperwork? Underseas cable? Good luck with that.

It's not a protocol problem, it's a cost problem.

Yggdrasil can do this but you have to bring the physical layer.

What you've described sounds a lot like running an AS with BGP. Yes, there's centralized allocation of ASNs and IP ranges. Otherwise, the whole thing is pretty decentralized, but you've got to figure out how to connect to peers and transit providers.

Many peers will connect without a real contract, especially if you're both present on a peering fabric, but transit usually needs a contract because transit isn't mutually beneficial.

For some sort of overlay/alternative network, reliable transit seems highly likely to have a cost too. Probably not a contracted cost while it's experimental; and maybe optimistically, much lower than today's costs for IP transit, but still there would be a cost. Actually, IP transit costs are much lower today than years ago, but last mile transport costs are more important to your bill and running wires requires skilled labor and specific capital equipment, so it remains expensive; bandwidth capacity of wiring increases over time, but you still need one connection per home for best service; although wireless seems poised to reduce costs for good enough service in favorable conditions.

> What you've described sounds a lot like running an AS with BGP. Yes, there's centralized allocation of ASNs and IP ranges. Otherwise, the whole thing is pretty decentralized, but you've got to figure out how to connect to peers and transit providers.

And even this is a thing of papers and agreements, not a protocol issue.

Anyone can set any AS number and claim any IP range they want, the protocol doesn't care. If you're setting up "your own internet", you can make a new list of ASNs ad distribute IP ranges however you wish. But yeah.. transit (="cables") is expensive.