[e2e] Discrete IP - retake

[Pars Mutaf]

You do not question enough Jon. See:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12602.html



On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jon Crowcroft
<jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:

> Take the MANET example, sure. Many use cases exist since ARPA Packet radio
> days. Battlefield networks, disaster recovery networks, vehicular
> networks...some actually in use ad deployed.
>
> The internet isn't for just one thing.it is, by definition, for anything
> we can imagine and realize...it is the union of all communications, not the
> intersection of one notion with one technology.
> On 18 Sep 2012 17:48, "Pars Mutaf" <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jon Crowcroft <
>> Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> this is what we used to talk about as the
>>> "my problem is too hard even for you" poser syndrome
>>>
>>> basically, whenever you offer a workable solution,
>>> the poser (of the problem) changes the
>>> problem (or the assumptions)
>>>
>>
>> No I didn't change the problem:
>>
>> What do we want for the Internet? Did we really ask this question?
>>
>> Take MANET for example, they did not ask themselves what it is used for.
>> They cannot explain.
>>
>> I would start a new thread "What do we want for the Internet"  but I am
>> not sure if I should do this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pars
>>
>>
>>>
>>> one of the nice things about IP (and the E2E argument(s))
>>> is that it is really hard to change the problem it solves
>>> in a way it still doesn't solve, whichever version you choose
>>> (well, ok, maybe not IPv5:)
>>>
>>> In missive <50589DCC.2030808 at dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker typed:
>>>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>On 9/18/2012 3:35 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>>  >>> In missive <
>>> CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO+V2XV1tFcP5PgT+Vq2A at mail.gmail.com>, Par
>>>  >>> s Mutaf typed:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>   >>> I encourage you to read the relevant prior work (many
>>> pointers were given)
>>>  >>>   >>Only 1 pointer was given (by Jon Crowcroft), it is not relevant.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> it is exactly relevant.
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>in the broader sense of whether this thread has been, or has any hope
>>> of
>>>  >>being, constructive, it was not relevant...
>>>  >>
>>>  >>d/
>>>  >>
>>>  >>--
>>>  >>  Dave Crocker
>>>  >>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>>  >>  bbiw.net
>>>
>>>  cheers
>>>
>>>    jon
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.content-based-science.org
>>
>>


-- 
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120919/b05d9236/attachment.html