I'm inclined to think that the intent behind this WSJ article was to provide prime shelf space, in the investing public's view, to several commercial entities (mentioned in the piece), while leveraging a well known fact: Almost by definition, the Internet evolves. It's ability to evolve is one of its primary strengths, despite the shortcomings it can be cited for at any moment in time. BTW, optical processing is not as fast as electrical "processing" yet. The old saw you mentioned (citing V. Cerf) has to be viewed with a grain of salt. Every attempt at running 100 Gbps Ethernet, to date, has included some means of electrical processing and inverse multiplexing at the end points because of the intractability of optics at that speed (given the anomalies that take place on long spans). This will undoubtedly change with improvements in photonics, but for the moment electrical rules (within hardware systems), while optical is, of course, the hands down winner in the transmission space. See:
Death of the All Optical Networkhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/18223-death-of-the-all-optical-network But this too will change. Frank >-----Original Message----- >From: WWWhatsup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2007 02:12 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Discuss] ITS CREATORS CALL INTERNET OUTDATED, OFFER REMEDIES > > >This seems to be about making infrastructure that can handle bigger packets, >perhaps >by packet analysis & bundling. It doesn't say anything about protocols. > >I think Vint has said for years that the bottleneck is where the electrical >meets the optical, it's still really the on and offramps. > >IP's inefficiency is what makes it reliable. > > joly > > > >At 01:44 PM 10/4/2007, you wrote: >>Joly, >> >>what do you make of that? >>I mean - is this another "immediate death of the net predicted" scenario that >>we've been accustomed to hear since the late eighties? >>Is this another method for companies to propose all sorts of >>software/hardware or whatever other knick-nacks to "solve" a potential >>problem? >>Where does this leave IPv6? >> >>I'd be interested in your views. >> >>Cheers, >> >>O. >> >> >>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119128309597345795.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace >>>(requires subscription) >>>* Our fraying Internet infrastructure (Commentary) >>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/01/EDGBSAN5C.DTL >> > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > WWWhatsup NYC >http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.isoc-ny.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.isoc-ny.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
