Re: Should we share?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Should we share?
- From: Bdale Garbee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:47:05 -0700
- Cc: email@example.com
- Newsgroups: list.tcp-group
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> you wrote:
I also just noticed this thread... had basically stopped reading tcp-group
for a while until someone asked me a question on the side... so here I go,
head-first into the murk.
: I understand that what you are suggesting is to
: make IP the "internetworking protocol" rather than the networking protocol,
: and that this is not unreasonable.
Ever stop to consider that it's called 'IP' and not 'NP' for a reason?
The beauty of IP is exactly that it is an internetworking protocol that allows
applications and users to, for the most part, remain blissfully unaware of
what the real networking technology is that they are using, or what network
protocols are pedalling madly below the surface to make things work. We cheat
in the amateur packet world by not providing a consistent and complete network
model to IP, and have to do all sorts of weird addressing implies routing
things as a result.
: We are still left with the need to run something above AX.25.
Yes. I think Brian means this too, but it's just word-play as to whether you
talk about "enhancing AX.25", or running something on top of it. I suggest
that what we really probably want is to replace AX.25 with something else, for
several reasons. AX.25 is very heavy for what we use it for. No reason not
to strip it down to size, and replace the connection mode cruft with a useful
networking protocol. Perhaps Net/Right to replace Net/Wrong? :-)
: AX.25 is written into the law in most places, including the United States,
: and that is even worse than being written into the TNC firmware.
Not really. It's only written into part 97 for unattended operation, as of
the last time I looked, so it would be relatively easy to build something new
with or without an STA, and then petition for a rules change. Or, we could
petition for a rules change on general principles, but I don't see the point.
Or we could keep the mildly damanaged AX.25 framing format and release our new
protocol as AX.25 version 3?
I still need to find time to make up the t-shirts I've talked about for years:
AXe.25 - What a Hack! (picture of a dude with HT on belt, quad on
hat, rabid expression, and axe in hands...)
Besides, TNC's have been passe for years now... :-)
: Amprnet is an
: IP-based network and will remain so. While we might someday be using IPv6 or
: IP-flavor-of-the-month, that will be a network other than Amprnet even if
: it is connected to Amprnet.
I really don't understand this position at all. My presumption has been that
network 44 would probably be more interested in and quicker to migrate to IPv6
when the time is right than the typical corporate network. We won't
necessarily need to, but where's your sense of adventure? :-)
: In my opinion, we need to start with the lowest level bit twiddling. We need
: to build basic forward error correction and redundancy into the physical
: layer. If we do this, we are no longer walking on the frontier of routing
: protocols, but can do standard kinds of things.
Aha. Ok, this is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe that the amateur
radio environment will involve life on the frontier of routing protocols
regardless of how well we engineer the physical links. This is because my
personal vision of what packet radio can and should be involves behaviours that
include frequent, and in some cases constant, mobility. This is a problem for
all existing routing schemes that I'm aware of.
Packet radio shouldn't be something I have to sit in the basement to do...
Note that this in no way means that I think we can ignore the physical layer.
Quite the contrary... I also read and agree with much of what N6GN has had to
say in this regard.
: I'm never quite sure what Brian is getting at in his comments. :-)
:-) Absolutely wonderful, isn't it!?! :-)
And not at all unique to Brian....
73 - Bdale, N3EUA
ps: so Phil, is the dj port of NOS running yet? I haven't got enough to do