NANOG

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.

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