[e2e] Discrete IP

[Pars Mutaf]

Normally, we should come with a solution, implement it, it becomes popular,
everybody uses it, then IETF standardizes it.

Like SSL.

The rest is IETF's mental illusions. IPv6 etc. Trying to mandate a solution
that no one asked for. If you forget the two elephants (IETF totally
ignored them) happiness can't be.

So I don't know what I am doing here... This is a useless place.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This discussion seems to be about "what would be good design" vs.
> pragmatic "what can we standardize and deploy now".
>
> I think that your proposal falls in the first category, like the PlutArch
> paper that Jon Crowcroft has pointed to, and like John Day's book!
> http://www.amazon.com/**Patterns-Network-Architecture-**
> Return-Fundamentals/<http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Network-Architecture-Return-Fundamentals/>
> I think that this book covers a lot of what you'd like to see, in great
> detail.
>
> In the second category, I think the IETF is doing the best it can, e.g.
> with point solutions like indeed 6lowpan and recent things happening in the
> IRTF RRG.
> If you think that these solutions are not far reaching enough, why not
> make a concrete proposal?
>
> Simply saying "the architecture is wrong, it should be X" is fine, but
> then you're in the world of research where I'd say what you propose is
> nothing new.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>
>  For those who forgot the original post, the problem that I see is:
>>
>> IETF is blocking technology.
>>
>> 1. No one should touch the existing IPv4 Internet (except those who run
>> it)
>> 2. IPv6 cannot be deployed
>> 3. IPv6 means IP research is done. This is very harmful.
>>
>> IETF's role is not making design decisions for others, it is ***enabling
>> new technology***.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> This is off topic no?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Ross Finlayson <finlayson at live555.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>     > Even better, perhaps professional mailing
>>>> lists like this should start
>>>>     > rejecting postings from 'hobbyist' email
>>>> addresses ("@gmail.com",
>>>>     > "@yahoo.com", etc.)...
>>>>
>>>> Sigh, much as I basically agree with you, a number of our
>>>> serious contributors
>>>> also use gmail, etc, these days.
>>>>
>>>>  Not to mention the PhD students who wouldn't like to be excluded ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Do these PhD students' schools not have their own domain name? :-)
>>
>> Note that it's possible to let gmail manage email to/from addresses that
>> use other domain names.  See:http://productforums.**
>> google.com/forum/#!topic/**gmail/tEaJstfhzeI<http://productforums.google.com/forum/#%21topic/gmail/tEaJstfhzeI>
>>
>> The problem is not the 'gmail' service per se (provided that you don't
>> mind your email being scanned :-).  The problem is the "@gmail.com"
>> email address suffix, which advertises to the world that you're not
>> particularly relevant.  (Ditto for "@yahoo.com", "@hotmail.com", "@
>> aol.com" addresses, etc.)
>>
>> Ross.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.content-based-**science.org<http://www.content-based-science.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.content-based-**science.org<http://www.content-based-science.org>
>>
>>
>


-- 
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120916/a0c68fad/attachment.html