RE: NANOG

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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

2

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