At 12:41 PM 7/3/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote:
> However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust.
> intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very
> Intelligent Secure network is usually
But he DID make it more feasible and useful. And he DID throw thousands of
them away!
;)
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay
R. Ashworth
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:07 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Fundamental changes
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:08:39PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
> > On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ...
> >> unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
> >
> > Trying stuff i
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ...
unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can
really know what
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
>
> On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How many light bulbs did Edison throw away?
>
> 42?
That's atleast 2 orders of magnitude off:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story074.htm
interesting story though.
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:43:40 EDT, "Jay R. Ashworth" said:
> And the world demand for computers might someday approach 100?
To be fair to TJ Watson, please note that IBM was *already* engaged in
the production and sales of automated tabulating equipment, and when reading
his comment *in historical
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ...
> unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can
really know what it'll do. At what point do entirely
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:50:03AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> the problem is that there are really no fundamentally new great
> concepts. so this is likely doomed to be yet another second
> system syndrome.
And the world demand for computers might someday approach 100?
How do we *know* there ar
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote:
> However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust.
> intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very
> Intelligent Secure network is usually a nightmare of unexplained failures
> and li
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
fundamentally)?
Most of the routing and security issues on todays IP4/I
No, _telephone_service_ has changed, but the POTS/PSTN is
pretty much the same as it has been for the past 20 years.
- ferg
-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And the phone network was "pretty far along to fundamentally change" -
and then it id.
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Arch
> I'm skeptical about something truly new coming from this specific
> project, but I hope it comes from somewhere.
the problem is that there are really no fundamentally new great
concepts. so this is likely doomed to be yet another second
system syndrome.
randy
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
fundamentally)?
- ferg
Many people probabl
On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:29 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from
some
fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?
tw
--David Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In fact, Fergie's later comment "... We're pretty far along in our
>current architecture to 'fundamentally' change" is actually the root of
>what I think DC is trying to get at. I think it's a very reasonable
>question to ask: Is the Internet he
At 06:29 AM 7/1/2005, you wrote:
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhea
>
On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote:
Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many
levels.
Not that I want to throw any more fire on this, but I think the
article is
talking about National L
Well, it _is_ research, after all... :-)
- ferg
-- John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
> but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
> "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
> fundamentally)?
>From
At 9:58 AM -0500 7/1/05, John Kristoff wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emph
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
> but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
> "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
> fundamentally)?
From the article it
> It is about wasting taxpayers money while watching china deploy IPv9.
Though I'm not positive, my impression is that NLR currently being built not by
the NSF but by "member institutions" - which is to say by research Universities
that are a part of the Internet2 project. Because we're being
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> network that imp
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
fundamentally)?
- ferg
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we coul
Why not create a special taskforce to research implementing
RFC 2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
considdering the dodo or alternatively achaeopteryx (both extinct)?
It is about wasting taxpayers money while watching china deploy IPv9.
We do not need IPv6. We do not need P2P
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhea
>d
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that t
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think Dave Clark is talking about something more fundamental than
> simply IPv6 and also more far reaching. Also, the experience with
> retrofitting most of IPv6's new features into IPv4 shows that it
> is good to have role mod
> > Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> > network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many
levels.
> The real work is done elsewhere. There _are_ commercial ISPs nowadays
> who have 30Gbps (30, not 3) of native IPv6 bandwidth US-EU and can
> pr
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:28:31AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
I
28 matches
Mail list logo
