RE: Stargates (In Defense of J.F.)

@ On Sun, 26 May 1996, Tim Bass wrote:
@ > Excuse me just a little, but I would like to follow-up on the
@ > Bush-o-Gram with regard to Jim Fleming and others whom Randy
@ > would love to silence in this world.

I am not sure why people on the Internet want to silence people.
I thought that the Internet was born with a basic goal of breaking
down centralized control over information flow and the censorship
that always goes with power being concentrated in a few people's
hands (or minds)...

@ NANOG = North American Network Operators' Group
@ Tim, please stop lowering this list's signal/noise ratio. This list is not for
@ philophical treatise on anything. It's an operator's group. Discussion of
@ IPv8, merits or lack there of, and such is better suited for lists like
@ Big-internet, which is for non-operational side of things.

The OuterInternet is the best place to discuss IPv8 but you
have to have an IPv8 network to get there...

That is no differenent than saying one of the best places
to discuss space travel is while cruising around on the space
shuttle....just because a person is not on the space shuttle
does not mean they should have no opinions or be restricted
from discussing what it would be like...

BTW, it also helps to have the C+@ programming language
to fully discuss and understand IPv8...

no space shuttle is required...:wink:

@ > I have read some of Jim's posts on his ideas of StarGates,
@ > Galaxies and his idea of IPv8; and I'll be the first to admit
@ > that I haven't taken the time to visit Jim's WWW site and
@ > read his proposals and ideas. They do seem to be a radical
@ Then don't comment.

People should be able to comment on whatever they like
to comment on...maybe people should not listen to comments
they do not want to hear...

@ > and in NANOG, because his proposals relate directly to IP internetworking
@ > and IP operations.
@ Wrong. As IPv8 currently stands, it has nothing to do with operations.

I am not sure about that...

Operations people may want to know how IPv8 packets
are encapsulated inside IPv4 packets and transmitted
across the network...this may have an impact on how
they configure their networks...

Also, operations people may find it useful to make the
10 minute changes required in their BSD systems to be
able to use simple IPv8 on their "internal" systems. This
can give them added security, and in some cases operations
people may find it useful to have a pure IPv8 sub-net and be
able to detect if an IPv4 system is plugged into the net.

Also, companies that are looking to the future and asking
operations people about options may find that it is easier
to build an IPv8 network now using the IPv4 network simply
for transport and then expand their corporate network using
IPv8 addressing. If IPv6 is ever deployed, the 43 bit IPv8
addresses can be easily tucked into the 128 bit IPv6 fields.

Correct me if I am wrong, but operations is not just restricted
to people sitting in front of a CRT waiting for an alarm to
sound...that would not be very interesting...

@ Once Jim documents it in an I-D, solicits peer review, and get at least two
@ interoperable implementations, then it would be of interest to NANOG. I'm sure
@ toy junkies like me would love to spend some time playing with implementation
@ of IPv8 once that happens.

You can more easily play with it on your internal networks.
It is important to do this because one can take a view of the
world that IPv4 is a sub-set of IPv8 and you have to play with
the technology to be able to develop this view.

Also, it is healthy to consider IPv8 because people interested
in preserving IPv4 via long-term address ecology efforts might
find that it is easier to do this with a "place to stand" like IPv8.
One does not have to jump to something as radical as IPv6
in order to be able to have a temporary place to sort out IPv4
legacy allocations.

@ Until then, please keep whatifs, philosophical rants etc off NANOG.

I would like to note that I have not said anything here. I am
not sure why I was the target of this discussion.

Several people have told me that they look forward to the
day when IPv8 networks provide them with a place to
move from the Legacy Internet where it seems that people
spend a lot of useful energy fighting things that they have
no ability to change.

IPv8 requires no change to the existing networks unless
the Network Operators find that they want to provide more
efficient service. IPv8 was intentionally designed with the
knowledge that people do not like change and also do not
like to discuss change.

Maybe the best thing to communicate to NANOG members
is that they do not have to do anything NEW to support IPv8.
People that use IPv8 will only be requesting basic IPv4
transport, and hopefully the sum total of Legacy Internet
operators will be able to provide a stable platform upon
which to build another Internet...the OuterInternet...

As you can see, I am not advocating change for
those people that have little ability or interest in
changing...for people that use IPv8 from day one,
they will of course not see "change"...

...consider the Windows 95 user that would not
change to Windows 3.11 (or DOS)...they just
move on...some follow and some do not...

...that is the nature of the computer and
telecommunications industry...things are
always changing...I do not see that changing...

Humm, I don't think ARPA cared about breaking down centralized control
over information flow and censorship. They wanted to connect DOD computers
together and could care less about most of the things the internet is used
for today.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!