NANOG

Tue Apr 2 21:55:05 UTC 1996

Dear Jerry Whomever, (and NANOG)

Thanks for my first few clues (below) on how the Internet is actually
really run.

Note, I have never predicted "the death of the Internet," only catastrophic
collapse(s) during 1996, which is "a good calibration" of the rest of your
objections (below).

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the problem is not that the Internet's chief 100
engineers, whoever they are, fail to report their problems to me, it's that
they (you?) fail to report them to anybody, including to each other, which
is half our problem.

Now, NANOG -- not affiliated with anybody, you say, not even the Internet
Society.  OK, I stand corrected.  So, if not ISOC, who are IEPG and NANOG?
Do IEPG and NANOG have anything to do with one another?  By the way, is
IETF not ISOC too?  See www.isoc.org.

Settlements, "wrong on the face?"  Or are you just too busy busy busy
defensive to argue?

So, you say, increasing Internet diameters (hops) are only of concern to
whiners like me?  There are no whiners LIKE me.  I am THE whiner.  And hops
ARE a first class problem, Jerry, or are you clueless about how
store-and-forward packet switching actually really works?

Jerry, if you represent the engineers running the Internet, now I'm really
worried.

Thank you for sharing, stay tuned,

/Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld

>Received: by ccmail from lserver.infoworld.com
>>From jerry at fc.net
>X-Envelope-From: jerry at fc.net
>Received: from largo.remailer.net by lserver.infoworld.com with smtp
>    (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST
>Received: from durango.remailer.net (durango.remailer.net [204.94.187.35]) by
>largo.remailer.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for
><bob_metcalfe at infoworld.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800
>Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79 at fc.net>
>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800
>From: jerry <jerry at fc.net>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: bob_metcalfe at infoworld.com
>Subject: RE: NANOG
>X-URL: http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/metcalfe.htm
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>You might want to note, that NANOG is not any kind of
>offical function of ISOC, or any other organization.  Merit
>kindly helps provide resources to create a technical forum
>where issues are raised, and Network Operators learn
>about problems and fix them.
>
>Just because the chief engineers of the Internet don't report
>their problems to you, doesn't give you an excuse to go off.
>
>I don't think you even have a clue as to WHO, WHAT, or HOW
>the Internet is run.
>Your suggestion that traffic based settlements will do
>much of anything, other that create jobs for bean counters
>is just plan wrong of the face of it.
>
>Oh, and about Nanog, perhaps the reason it doesn't meet
>more often, is because the top 100 engineers running the
>net are busy working, so people like you can whine
>about outages, "increasing diameters", etc.
>
>
>>From todays NANOG List:
>-------------------------------------------------
>Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:08:03 -0500 (EST)
>To: nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Metcalfe's clue density...
>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>
>
>the fact that he attributes the IEPG as an ISOC organization
>is a good calibration on everything else.
>
>just remember:
>
>        "Imminent death of net predicted" ::= end of discussion
>
>soooo sorry. thanks for playing. good night.
>
>        -mo

______________________________________________
______________________________________________

Dr. Robert M. ("Bob") Metcalfe
Executive Correspondent, InfoWorld and
VP Technology, International Data Group

Internet Messages: bob_metcalfe at infoworld.com
Voice Messages: 617-534-1215

Conference Chairman for
ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing
San Jose Convention Center
March 1-5, 1997
______________________________________________
______________________________________________