And another time your 'friend' has been suspended on the IETF list Mr.
Baptista.
This one is for the record, so that everyone who finds your 'nice'
one-sided story
also gets to know the other side.
Enough of this, back to ops.
Greets,
Jeroen
And another time your 'friend' has been suspended on the IETF list Mr.
Baptista.
This one is for the record, so that everyone who finds your 'nice'
one-sided story
also gets to know the other side.
Everone who participates in these conferences knows he's always being
suspended. I think thats the norm and not that unusual for him.
You also forgot to point out that he's suspended on NANOG too. And maybe
the GA@DNSO.
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical
issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc.
It's like watching a room full of techs who have taken up the profession
of interior decorators and argue how the technology would look so much
better in a red backdrop - very droll 
I expect Jim will be thrown out of many more conferences before the year
is done.
Now if you'd like to challenge him on the technical issues - why don't we
take this private with Jim? I'll watch and ask questions.
regards
joe
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical
issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc.
OK. Want a technical issue? He's not allowed to redefine the 8-bit TOS
field as 2 4-bit address extensions, since he doesn't give a spec of how
an intermediate router is supposed to know which way to interpret the TOS
field, nor does he suggest an API change or DNS interface changes (for all
his babbling about using AAAA records, those are defined to carry IPv6
addresses, he'll have to find some other way to carry his IPv8 addresses).
Oh wait.. that's two technical issues, and they've been pointed out to Jim
before, multiple times, and Jim's never bothered fixing his proposal to
deal with them.
The part about his posting habits is the fact that he insists on re-hashing
the SAME ideas even after he's been told multiple times exactly why his
ideas won't work (see the above paragraph). It's especially annoying when
he insists on dragging his ideas into totally unrelated threads.
I expect Jim will be thrown out of many more conferences before the year
is done.
Drunks are thrown out of bars all the time too. I'm not sure that you
really want to make this point.
Now if you'd like to challenge him on the technical issues - why don't we
take this private with Jim? I'll watch and ask questions.
We'll be more than happy to do so once Jim shows the slightest sign of
interest in fixing his proposal to deal with the technical arguments that
have *already* been made. Most engineers have learned there is little to
be gained in fine-tuning the valve timing on a gasoline-powered internal
combustion engine when the pistons and crankshaft are missing...
Give it a rest, Joe.
thanks for the techi response - its appreciated and the first i've
received.
Fleming can't post here but he is monitoring so maybe he can respond in
private to us.
Cheers
Joe Baptista
Thus spake "Joe Baptista" <baptista@dot-god.com>
Does not change the fact no one has yet challenged him on the technical
issues he's raised. They just complain about his posting habits etc. etc.
It's like watching a room full of techs who have taken up the profession
of interior decorators and argue how the technology would look so much
better in a red backdrop - very droll
The very few legitimate technical issues I've seen him raise were dealt with
several years ago and documented in RFCs. The vast majority of what he posts,
however, is inflamatory political diatribe which only appears to have technical
content to non-technical folks such as reporters.
Jim has set himself up to be a martyr instead of trying to be productive. He
clearly has no interest in working within the existing engineering framework nor
with its consensus model. Until he does so, anybody with half a clue will
ignore him for good reason.
S
This is just because there weren't any. Discussing anything with Jim is
like trying to explain to an inventor of perpetuum mobile who never
bothered to learn any physics why his latest and greatest design will not
work.
I have looked at his proposals (I do not claim to be able to understand
all of it - it is all so charmingly vague) and saw no hints of anything
which could be helpful in solving the real problems (i.e. routing
stability, need for faster convergence, traffic engineering,
efficient congestion control in presence of short flows, etc, etc).
Claiming that extending the number of bits in an address will solve all
Internet ills is quite foolish. In fact, it'll only make them worse by
making prefix aggregation less efficient (and routing tables bigger).
To be fair, in my opinion, IPv6 also suffers from the same
short-sightedness; although many things in it are quite nice I think it
does not do enough to justify blowing up the only chance to introduce
major changes to IP. I'd say any changes should be deferred until there's
a real advance in the global routing technology; not just more of the
same.
--vadim