[e2e] Port numbers, SRV records or...?
gds at best.com
Wed Aug 16 14:47:28 PDT 2006
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:14:33AM -0400, John Day wrote:
> I am arguing for a complete addressing architecture, not the half an
> architecture we have. What we have is an unfinished demo. If it
> were an OS, it would make DOS look good.
> While I understand that your appraisal of how the funding was being
> allocated is completely rationale, it bears little resemblance to the
If I understand you correctly, there was research money available
(earmarked?) for more addressing architecture research during the
ARPAnet and Internet's research phase? What happened to that money?
Was it never claimed, or used for something else?
> What I find really remarkable is the inability of current researchers
> to see beyond what is there. It is interesting that they are so
> focused on current developments that they are unable to see beyond
Hmmm. What do you think of the results of the NewArch group? In your
opinion, do they seem to be headed in the right direction?
> Greg Skinner wrote:
> >But after a certain point, the Internet could not be completely
> >replaced. There was too much "infrastructure" that people were
> A common myth intended to protect vested interests.
If working prototypes were developed, but didn't get folded into the
worldwide Internet, would you still consider the research a success?
Arguably, the vested interests (at least ISPs and vendors) have a lot
to lose if for some reason, the better addressing architecture can't
be deployed successfully, or costs customers too much money. I
suppose the same can be said for researchers who are funded from
commercial vested interests.
> I don't expect to see a wholesale replacement overnight. But I do
> think it is possible to move to a much better Net over time. Those
> that rely on the argument that there is just too much infrastructure
> in place, etc for change generally are the ones who either lack
> imagination or are merely protecting their vested interest (I hope
> more the latter than the former). It would seem that the Internet
> has become even more blinded to next step than the phone companies of
> the 70s were when we first started this. When I look back over the
> last 25 years, it saddens me to see a field that had such vibrance in
> its early days fall so quickly into acting like stodgy old men.
> Maybe they just ran out of ideas. I don't really know.
Sometimes I think that computer networking lacks the luster of other
areas of computer science. It has its hardcore contributors (such as
people who participate on this list), but the vast majority of people
gravitate towards other areas, either out of necessity (money), or
because they find the work more
interesting/challenging/rewarding. You'll find no end of people who
want to do information retrieval, or data mining, because they want to
work for Google or some other search engine. Are these the types of
people the computer networking industry and research community need to
create the next generation Internet? What would compel them to do so?
I don't know either.
More information about the end2end-interest