Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG) Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually really run. Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your objections (below). Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which is half our problem. Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org. Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy defensive to argue? So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how store-and-forward packet switching actually really works? Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really worried. Thank you for sharing, stay tuned, /Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld
Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com
From jerry@fc.net X-Envelope-From: jerry@fc.net Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for <bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800 Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79@fc.net> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800 From: jerry <jerry@fc.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com Subject: RE: NANOG X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn about problems and fix them.
Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off.
I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW the Internet is run. Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters is just plan wrong of the face of it.
Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the net are busy working, so people like you can whine about outages, "increasing diameters", etc.
From todays NANOG List:
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST) To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Metcalfe's clue density... Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk
the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization is a good calibration on everything else.
just remember:
"Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion
soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night.
-mo
______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and VP Technology, International Data Group Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com Voice Messages: 617-534-1215 Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center March 1-5, 1997 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Bob Metcalfe wrote:
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which is half our problem.
This is a good point. If there were a list somewhere which collated all of the trouble reports from all of the ISP's then some entrepreneur could set up an Internet traffic report WWW site and make all the mass of trouble reports palatable for end users, including stories about ladies in Lincolns. This entrepreneur could get rich selling ads on their WWW site and everyone would know what is going on.
Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org.
Even though I know how all this came about and how groups like NANOG operate (what group!) I still don't believe it when people say that NANOG doesn't set policy and NANOG is not affiliated with anybody. The fact is that NANOG appears to set policy and NANOG appears to be affiliated with somebody and that appearance is what counts until NANOG pipes up and states what their official policy and official affiliations are.
Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy defensive to argue?
Settlements are contrary to NANOG policy. It is also contrary to NANOG policy to engage in long drawn out debates about things which have already been decided, like "settlements are wrong". The policy is unwritten and to a certain extent, non-verbal, but it is policy nevertheless.
So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how store-and-forward packet switching actually really works?
I have had to explain to ISP's how to do email relaying so that their customers can get email back and forth from fringe locations. It's usually an asymmetrical problem so it shows up when a person can receive email but cannot send a reply. BTW, the trick is to address it like this joe%farawayplace.com@majorhub.com Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
In reply to your message of Tue, 02 Apr 1996 16:46:01 PST: | Even though I know how all this came about and how groups like NANOG | operate (what group!) I still don't believe it when people say that NANOG | doesn't set policy and NANOG is not affiliated with anybody. The fact is | that NANOG appears to set policy and NANOG appears to be affiliated with | somebody and that appearance is what counts until NANOG pipes up and | states what their official policy and official affiliations are. Machiavelli said it best: "For the great majority of mankind is concerned with appearances, as though they were realities, and prefers to deal with the things that seem, rather than those that are". The *fact* is that NANOG is not affiliated and does not set any policy. | Settlements are contrary to NANOG policy. It is also contrary to NANOG | policy to engage in long drawn out debates about things which have | already been decided, like "settlements are wrong". The policy is | unwritten and to a certain extent, non-verbal, but it is policy nevertheless. As a director of mine once said: "A policy is a written document that is binding in some fashion among one or more parties. If it's not in writing, it's a philosophy, not a policy." NANOG participants practice, to a greater or lesser extent, certain philosophies, and actualize certain mindsets, in their interactions and exchanges of information. This is not policy nor the setting of policy, even if NANOG members do set and implement policy in other venues. | BTW, the trick is to address it like this joe%farawayplace.com@majorhub.com And just to reciprocate on the distribution of clues, take the policy buck to InterNIC, the FCC, or the other regulatory body of your choice, not to NANOG. Also, from your other message: | You may not like the eyes of the world to be looking at you, but the fact | is that those eyes are going to be looking at you more and more as the | Internet grows in importance and people get curious at how it really works. Then the world will continue to be frustrated by a group of people whose interaction in this forum deals with technical realities rather than politically correct appearances. 'Nuff said. <donning the asbestos suit...> Rgrds, Paul ***definitely speaking solely for myself this time!*** Paul "Corwin" Frommeyer Work Internet Engineer, CCIE Play ISP Systems Engineer Network Sorcerer At Large Cisco Systems, Inc. Paul's Fone Company pfrommey@cisco.com corwin@palas.com *** Speaking solely for myself unless otherwise noted ***
I've already had, others far more qualified tthat me, come to my defense, since you so kindly eply to my private email in a public forum. I didn't make the "death of the internet" comment, check your attributions. As top the top 100 cheief engineers, assuming for a moment that 100 number is something more than a number I pulled out of thin air., With your comments to Nanog you are probably addressing half.
Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG)
Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually really run.
Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your objections (below).
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100 engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which is half our problem.
They do report them to each other. Your assertion is without basis in fact.
Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet Society. OK, I stand corrected. So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG? Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another? By the way, is IETF not ISOC too? See www.isoc.org.
For info on nanog, check http://www.merit.edu. I don't have time to give you a detail history of how ISOC and IETF, IANA, US DOD, ARPA, NSFNET, NSF etc all interrelate, but there are a number of good papers on it.
Settlements, "wrong on the face?" Or are you just too busy busy busy defensive to argue?
Well, I am quite busy, but as far as I know, there are exactly 2 people on the planet earth, that are studing economics of Internet service. I'd be more than hjappy to send you a pre-release of my paper on economics of route filtering. Yakov would be happy to send you some of his stuff too.
So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to whiners like me? There are no whiners LIKE me. I am THE whiner. And hops ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how store-and-forward packet switching actually really works?
I know how CIsco routers do IP. I know I've seen the failure modes and patholgies, up close and personal. I've seen the real limits that are causing the problems you are seeing today. And its not Hop count. Only thing I've ever break due to hop count, is software/hardware that doesn't conform to modern RFCs. And then only in a small minority of cases, with long leaf paths off MCIs network. (MCI's network has more hops than some, and a number of MCI customers are regional networks themselves, which increases the complexity.)
Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really worried.
If you represent the PHDs designing the hardware I had to run my parts of the Internet on, I'd be worried. I'd be happy of the "profesional" press could get basic facts right and publicly post corrections when they are caught red handed. The folks of Nanog do have accountablilty to our customers, unlike these so called journalists that post accusations, without making the slighest effort to check the basic facts.
Thank you for sharing, stay tuned,
/Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld
Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com
From jerry@fc.net X-Envelope-From: jerry@fc.net Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for <bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800 Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79@fc.net> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800 From: jerry <jerry@fc.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com Subject: RE: NANOG X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of offical function of ISOC, or any other organization. Merit kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn about problems and fix them.
Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off.
I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW the Internet is run. Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters is just plan wrong of the face of it.
Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the net are busy working, so people like you can whine about outages, "increasing diameters", etc.
From todays NANOG List:
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST) To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Metcalfe's clue density... Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk
the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization is a good calibration on everything else.
just remember:
"Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion
soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night.
-mo
______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and VP Technology, International Data Group
Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com Voice Messages: 617-534-1215
Conference Chairman for ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing San Jose Convention Center March 1-5, 1997 ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
-- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
As top the top 100 cheief engineers, assuming for a moment that 100 number is something more than a number I pulled out of thin air., With your comments to Nanog you are probably addressing half.
Bob Metcalfe is just another example of a computer journalist caught up in the buzzwords of the current technology. It's sad to see such rubbish in news, but hey, it's how they make the money. It's very disappointing that he attempts to DEFEND his cluelessness against some of the BEST in the industry. Bob, I recommend you go back to covering hog prices for the local paper. /cah
participants (5)
-
bob_metcalfe＠infoworld.com -
Craig A. Huegen -
Jeremy Porter -
Michael Dillon -
Paul Frommeyer