> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 10:47 PM
> I do however think that, given the tendency of various providers
> these days to violate the internet protocol specifications and
> erode the ability of applications to ru
Brijesh Kumar wrote:
> As a technical person, you may not like their solution, but
> they appear to meet requirements of their target market.
Emphasis on "appear". The non-ISPs provide services that appear to be
Internet access, but aren't. The big problem is when new protocols come
along that
Lloyd Wood wrote:
> > users. This hurts developers, of course, because it limits our user
> > base; but it also hurts the non-ISPs' users (obviously) *and* all other
> > users (by Metcalfe's Law).
>
> ...but benefits the non-ISPs, who can charge for selectively
> introducing any new service (eve
> It is akin to standardizing on what kind of light can come in your
> neighbourhood.
properly done, and with no adjectives or judgement spin, it could be a
taxonomy of what kinds of light are known. this might be useful, witness
a recent discussion re wap of what is being on the internet.
rand
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > It is akin to standardizing on what kind of light can come in your
> > neighbourhood.
>
> properly done, and with no adjectives or judgement spin, it could be
a
> taxonomy of what kinds of light are known. this might
Brijesh;
> NAT is no less offender of the end
> to end design paradigm, than WAP and AOL.
Of course.
Who said otherwise?
Masataka Ohta
