On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote: >And the proposal brings up (again) the interesting issue of just what >"the Net" is: Yep. It would be a boon if everybody who thinks they have a say in network architecture these days learned their TC/IP, BGP and OSPF before charging to change the infra. And of course understood that the Net isn't centrally governed. >-- is it a collection of mostly privately-owned fibers, cables, and >switches, with users contracting to carry packets over parts of it? Upon being asked, I once tried to explain this to my mother. Got a good, blank stare and never tried it again. A perfect test of how the average Joe sees things. I'm tempted to view this as an example of how people miss the point about emergent order. >In what sense would it be meaningful to talk about "creating alternative >nets"? [...] I'm guessing this is about layering TCP/IP based VPNs on top of the current Net infra, only this time mandating participation in a given one in exchange for your liberty. Keeping the VPNs separate would be where the crypto comes in. It is also where the idea breaks, since without plenty of smut to go around, the non-smut part of the network would probably wither and die. That's where the money is, the killer app. Plus, there's a lot of benefit in keeping the Net connected, as we see from the aggressive move off private corporate networks to VPNs on the big I, a few years back. >"Even Crews admits that he hasn't worked out the logistics or a >clear-cut definition for what he envisions. But like a true >visionary, that hasn't stopped him from pushing the idea." That's the Planner in him talking. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
