RE: Stargates (In Defense of J.F.)
On Sunday, May 26, 1996 10:50 AM, Dorian Kim[SMTP:dorian@cic.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 26 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote: @ @ > Excuse me just a little, but I would like to follow-up on the @ > Bush-o-Gram with regard to Jim Fleming and others whom Randy @ > would love to silence in this world. @ I am not sure why people on the Internet want to silence people. I thought that the Internet was born with a basic goal of breaking down centralized control over information flow and the censorship that always goes with power being concentrated in a few people's hands (or minds)... @ NANOG = North American Network Operators' Group @ Tim, please stop lowering this list's signal/noise ratio. This list is not for @ philophical treatise on anything. It's an operator's group. Discussion of @ IPv8, merits or lack there of, and such is better suited for lists like @ Big-internet, which is for non-operational side of things. @ The OuterInternet is the best place to discuss IPv8 but you have to have an IPv8 network to get there... That is no differenent than saying one of the best places to discuss space travel is while cruising around on the space shuttle....just because a person is not on the space shuttle does not mean they should have no opinions or be restricted from discussing what it would be like... BTW, it also helps to have the C+@ programming language to fully discuss and understand IPv8... no space shuttle is required...;-) @ > I have read some of Jim's posts on his ideas of StarGates, @ > Galaxies and his idea of IPv8; and I'll be the first to admit @ > that I haven't taken the time to visit Jim's WWW site and @ > read his proposals and ideas. They do seem to be a radical @ @ Then don't comment. @ People should be able to comment on whatever they like to comment on...maybe people should not listen to comments they do not want to hear... @ > and in NANOG, because his proposals relate directly to IP internetworking @ > and IP operations. @ @ Wrong. As IPv8 currently stands, it has nothing to do with operations. @ I am not sure about that... Operations people may want to know how IPv8 packets are encapsulated inside IPv4 packets and transmitted across the network...this may have an impact on how they configure their networks... Also, operations people may find it useful to make the 10 minute changes required in their BSD systems to be able to use simple IPv8 on their "internal" systems. This can give them added security, and in some cases operations people may find it useful to have a pure IPv8 sub-net and be able to detect if an IPv4 system is plugged into the net. Also, companies that are looking to the future and asking operations people about options may find that it is easier to build an IPv8 network now using the IPv4 network simply for transport and then expand their corporate network using IPv8 addressing. If IPv6 is ever deployed, the 43 bit IPv8 addresses can be easily tucked into the 128 bit IPv6 fields. Correct me if I am wrong, but operations is not just restricted to people sitting in front of a CRT waiting for an alarm to sound...that would not be very interesting... @ Once Jim documents it in an I-D, solicits peer review, and get at least two @ interoperable implementations, then it would be of interest to NANOG. I'm sure @ toy junkies like me would love to spend some time playing with implementation @ of IPv8 once that happens. @ You can more easily play with it on your internal networks. It is important to do this because one can take a view of the world that IPv4 is a sub-set of IPv8 and you have to play with the technology to be able to develop this view. Also, it is healthy to consider IPv8 because people interested in preserving IPv4 via long-term address ecology efforts might find that it is easier to do this with a "place to stand" like IPv8. One does not have to jump to something as radical as IPv6 in order to be able to have a temporary place to sort out IPv4 legacy allocations. @ Until then, please keep whatifs, philosophical rants etc off NANOG. @ I would like to note that I have not said anything here. I am not sure why I was the target of this discussion. Several people have told me that they look forward to the day when IPv8 networks provide them with a place to move from the Legacy Internet where it seems that people spend a lot of useful energy fighting things that they have no ability to change. IPv8 requires no change to the existing networks unless the Network Operators find that they want to provide more efficient service. IPv8 was intentionally designed with the knowledge that people do not like change and also do not like to discuss change. Maybe the best thing to communicate to NANOG members is that they do not have to do anything NEW to support IPv8. People that use IPv8 will only be requesting basic IPv4 transport, and hopefully the sum total of Legacy Internet operators will be able to provide a stable platform upon which to build another Internet...the OuterInternet... As you can see, I am not advocating change for those people that have little ability or interest in changing...for people that use IPv8 from day one, they will of course not see "change"... ...consider the Windows 95 user that would not change to Windows 3.11 (or DOS)...they just move on...some follow and some do not... ...that is the nature of the computer and telecommunications industry...things are always changing...I do not see that changing... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net
Jim laments (perhaps rhetorically):
I am not sure why people on the Internet want to silence people.
Don't forget, the Roman Catholic Church burned, at the stake, thousands of Minorites in the middle ages because the 'heretics' believed in poverty and not in wealth. The Church thought that if people practiced the joys of poverty, they would lose control of them.... the Emperors also feared poverty and were afraid of any philosophy that did not have wealth and power as the quintessential elements. It is anti-social to speak of "other paradigms", "what the NSF did with all their money over the years", "which government employee now has an executive job with what network company"... etc.... It is not appropriate to speak of it anywhere, NANOG is no exception, because of the potential explosiveness of the issues. That is why questioning these things leads to flames. As long as everyone is making $$$, no one cares what ethics are violated or how corrupt the process has become. And, if you get too close to the truth, they just award you a contract to silence you! Please, just pipe me to /dev/null, where I belong. My love and hope of a 'better, less commerical Internet' goes to /dev/zero as well :-( Bravo Internet Minorites and Bravo Internet Franciscans !! Lead me to the stake, for I shall die a glorious death. Quixotically Speaking, The Man of LaMancha ( I'll go quietly to the stake, and not disturb the Faith ) Goodbye, for I have sinned against Mother Network, and shall banish myself from writing for a random time interval. BTW: Before I go, how do I request the entire funding history of the Internet by NSF, by contractor, deliverable, and dollar amount... does that take The Freedom of Information Act ?? ---- And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear You shout and no one seems to hear And if the band your're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. -Roger Waters
On Mon, 27 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote: I don't see why JF needs defending. He said that IPv8 is encapsulated in IPv4 therefore network operators should not need to know about it.
It is anti-social to speak of "other paradigms", "what the NSF did
Try com-priv@psi.com Operations people only deal with the plumbing of the Internet, not with what flows through the pipes or who controls the taps. In fact, NANOG people don't even really deal with all operational issues but only with that subset related to running the Internet core in North America. Michael Dillon ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Mon, 27 May 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 1996 10:50 AM, Dorian Kim[SMTP:dorian@cic.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 26 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote: @ @ > Excuse me just a little, but I would like to follow-up on the @ > Bush-o-Gram with regard to Jim Fleming and others whom Randy @ > would love to silence in this world. @
I am not sure why people on the Internet want to silence people. I thought that the Internet was born with a basic goal of breaking down centralized control over information flow and the censorship that always goes with power being concentrated in a few people's hands (or minds)...
Humm, I don't think ARPA cared about breaking down centralized control over information flow and censorship. They wanted to connect DOD computers together and could care less about most of the things the internet is used for today. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
participants (4)
-
Jim Fleming -
Michael Dillon -
Nathan Stratton -
Tim Bass