Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
Jon: > personal comment > Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of > internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these > and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of > organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in > other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-) If I'm understanding you correctly, there is clearly a market for such organizations, otherwise they would not exist. Whether or not there is technical justification for what they do is a matter of opinion. For reasons that have been beaten to death here and elsewhere, they provide some function that is not met with the existing IPv4 service. I could make the argument that they provide Internet access, in the sense that one can use these providers to gain access to a subset of content and services that is "traditionally" called Internet service. I would support them being classified as Internet Access Providers (IAPs). In some circles, that's what they're called. Masataka: > I just want to make it illegal for these types of organisations call > their service "Internet" or "internet". > It's something like "Olympic". How would you go about doing that? What judicial organization is likely to make an issue of this, in light of all the other (arguably more serious) issues on their plates? --gregbo
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
> TSIGARIDAS PANAGIOTIS wrote: > > I believe, I found part of the following text in WAP Forum's WEB-pages. > However, I think the answer -from business and technology point of view- > is simple; > > Is WAP mobile Internet ? Yes and NO > > WAP is using existing Internet standards. The WAP architecture was > designed to enable standard Internet servers to provide services to > wireless devices. In other words - a gateway? If so, then it is a gateway to non-internet devices. They are not just disconnected devices. Many people have laptops that are connected then disconnected from an ISP. The mobile phones use a different protocol suite to perform their operations. I am not saying that is bad. Just that it seems to me to they are saying that they are providing a gateway to the internet for non-internet devices. Otherwise is all they would need is a bridge or router. > In addition, when communicating with wireless devices, > WAP uses many Internet standards such as XML, UDP and IP. The WAP > wireless protocols are based on Internet standards such as HTTP and TLS > but have been optimised for the unique constraints of the wireless > environment. And much email is still sent in ASCII (IEEE I think), that does mean that all internet email systems are IEEE devices. > Internet standards such as HTML, HTTP, TLS and TCP are inefficient over > mobile networks, requiring: > ... Orthogonal to the issue here - "is it the internet"?
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Keith Moore wrote: > > > Here in Japan we have 8 million non-WAP mobile internet users, > > uh, no. if you don't have IP to the phone, it's not mobile Internet. > calling it Internet is just deceptive advertising. I agree. I have cell phone with an IP address. When it is powered on I can ping it from any internet system. I can browse the internet with the help of a internet <-> WAP gateway. The two seem separate to me. -Doug
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
Randy; > > My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational > > RFC. > > > > It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions > > of various bodies including IETF. > > of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and > find new business models. Exuse? If you mean execution or decapitalization, yes, I will. Masataka Ohta
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
Bob; > *> but yes, likely some things in this world are not acceptable to some > *> segment of the population. so don't accept them. but life goes on and > *> things change. > *> > *> randy Changes are already implied by RC1958, which I refer. As things change, new RFCs can be issued. > Resist entropy. You can't. Entropy and the number of RFCs monotonically increase. Masataka Ohta
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
> masataka was saying that he could classify providers given a rather fixed > model. i was saying that the world changes and that providers will find > new business models and bend masataka's rigid classification. yes, but the desire to have classification of providers is significantly motiviated by providers that keep coming up with "business models" that involve deliberately corrupting the data that they carry. of course such providers would rather act as if they weren't doing anything harmful... which only further illustrates the need to have such classifications. Keith
RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
*> *> but yes, likely some things in this world are not acceptable to some *> segment of the population. so don't accept them. but life goes on and *> things change. *> *> randy *> *> Resist entropy. Bob Braden
RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
>I don't see any problems people making money
>on weird NAT-munging-weirdo-webonly-wap things
>which they sell to customers
"Making money" implies that for every seller
there is a willing buyer. For NAT to have
progressed from a twinkle-in-the-eye to the
near ubiquity that it will have in a few
years, there need to be a *lot* of willing
buyers. The marketplace rewards those who
satisfy a perceived need.
If we would prefer that those customers
choose another solution (IPv6), then we
will need to make it every bit as easy
to install and use as the alternative.
However, even that may not be enough --
because history tells us that displacing
a deeply entrenched competitor (IPv4 + NAT)
can generally only be accomplished by
exploiting points of inflection. Perhaps
Wireless and Infiniband will provide
the required inflection points; we will see.
>BUT, it is NOT Internet access.
I'm not sure that in practice this is a
distinction that will ever be universally
understood in the marketplace. AOL isn't
Internet access either, but it serves
more than 25 million users. As with
NAT, AOL thrives because it fills a
perceived need better than the alternative.
>I would not buy it, because I want Internet access.
Perhaps it is more instructive to turn the tables
and complete the sentence:
"I would prefer {insert abomination here} to Internet
Access because {insert reason for preferring
abomination}"
Then, try to complete an alternative sentence:
"I would prefer IPv6 to {insert abomination here} because
in addition to providing {insert reason for preferring
abomination} it can also enable my business to grow
faster in ways that IPv4 and {insert abomination here}
cannot provide: {insert tangible business benefits of
IPv6 here}"
The goal is to repeat the exercise until the above
sentence convinces large numbers of customers
(who may not know what Internet Access is) to part
with their money.
RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
> Joking aside, I agree with Keith Moore, some things are totally > unacceptable and this falls into that category. so we try to stay somewhere within the solar system, let's review what "this" is. it was a discussion with masataka and jon about defining classes of providers. From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:35:47 -0700 >> I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define >> a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that >> discussion can proceed > > My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an > Informational RFC. > > It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions > of various bodies including IETF. of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and find new business models. masataka was saying that he could classify providers given a rather fixed model. i was saying that the world changes and that providers will find new business models and bend masataka's rigid classification. and then keith came out of left field without bothering to actually read the thread and went off on his usual jihad against whatever perfidy drives him to wild accusations and libel this week, usually nats, proxies, and whatever. bring. but yes, likely some things in this world are not acceptable to some segment of the population. so don't accept them. but life goes on and things change. randy
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
> What I oppose strongly, is that people sell weird stuff and call it Internet. I've never seen a marketing person that wouldn't lie and do exactly that. If folks want to buy wierd stuff, and they know it's wierd stuff and are aware of its limitations, I don't have much problem with that. But I've yet to see a NAT product that was advertised honestly.
RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
I thought the real purpose of life was too make money!! Joking aside, I agree with Keith Moore, some things are totally unacceptable and this falls into that category. Data integrity should be of the utmost importance in any network. The InterNet is no exception. Regards Mark Paton CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng Mercury Network Systems Limited +44 585 649051 +44 1256 761925 http://www.mnsl.org "Mercury Network Systems - The Unstoppable Force" This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the named addressee or the person responsible for delivering the message to the named addressee, please telephone us immediately. Please note that we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. The views of the author may not necessarily reflect those of the Company. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 July 2000 03:26 To: Keith Moore Cc: Masataka Ohta; Jon Crowcroft; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt >> of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and >> find new business models. > > not bloody likely. some things are inexcusable. munging data in > transit is one of them. the fact that you may have a business > model that says you can make money doing something that is inexcusable > is not a justification for doing that thing. > > I'm sick and tired of folks justifing all manner of brain damage > merely because they think they can make money at it. you'd think > that they believe that the only purpose in life is to make money. > > Keith > > p.s. sorry to single you out, there are far worse culprits. have you tried valerian root tea? BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Paton;Mark.;J.S;; FN:Mark. J.S Paton ORG:Mnsl;Consultancy TITLE:Network Design / Support TEL;WORK;VOICE:+44 0585 649051 TEL;CELL;VOICE:+44 (0585) 649051 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;Basingstoke;Willow Cottage=0D=0AReading Road;Mattingley;Hampshire;RG27 8JU;= United Kingdom LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Basingstoke=0D=0AWillow Cottage=0D=0AReading Road=0D=0AMattingley, Hampshire= RG27 8JU=0D=0AUnited Kingdom URL: URL:http://www.mnsl.org EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:19990422T133901Z END:VCARD
