Jeremy Porter jerry at
Thu Apr 4 06:16:32 UTC 1996

I've already had, others far more qualified tthat me, come to my
defense, since you so kindly eply to my private email in a 
public forum.

I didn't make the "death of the internet" comment, check
your attributions.

As top the top 100 cheief engineers, assuming for a moment that 100 
number is something more than a number I pulled out of thin air., With
your comments to Nanog you are probably addressing half.
>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.

They do report them to each other.  Your assertion
is without basis in fact.

>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

For info on nanog, check
I don't have time to give you a detail history of how ISOC and IETF, IANA,
US DOD, ARPA, NSFNET, NSF etc all interrelate, but there are a number of good
papers on it.

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

Well, I am quite busy, but as far as I know, there are exactly
2 people on the planet earth, that are studing economics of Internet
service.  I'd be more than hjappy to send you a pre-release of my paper 
on economics of route filtering.  Yakov would be happy to send
you some of his stuff too.

>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?

I know how CIsco routers do IP.  I know I've seen the failure modes
and patholgies, up close and personal.  I've seen the real limits
that are causing the problems you are seeing today.  And its not Hop count.
Only thing I've ever break due to hop count, is software/hardware
that doesn't conform to modern RFCs.  And then only in a small minority
of cases, with long leaf paths off MCIs network.  (MCI's network
has more hops than some, and a number of MCI customers are regional
networks themselves, which increases the complexity.)

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

If you represent the PHDs designing the hardware I had
to run my parts of the Internet on, I'd be worried.

I'd be happy of the "profesional" press could get basic facts right
and publicly post corrections when they are caught red handed.

The folks of Nanog do have accountablilty to our customers,
unlike these so called journalists that post accusations,
without making the slighest effort to check the basic facts.

>Thank you for sharing, stay tuned,
>/Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld
>>Received: by ccmail from
>>>From jerry at
>>X-Envelope-From: jerry at
>>Received: from by with smtp
>>    (Smail3.1.29.1 #12) id m0u4BbH-000wsjC; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:18 PST
>>Received: from ( []) by
>> (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA23296 for
>><bob_metcalfe at>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:40:40 -0800
>>Message-ID: <316175BF.1E79 at>
>>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0800
>>From: jerry <jerry at>
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I)
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: bob_metcalfe at
>>Subject: RE: NANOG
>>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
>>Subject: Metcalfe's clue density...
>>Sender: owner-nanog at
>>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
>Voice Messages: 617-534-1215
>Conference Chairman for
>ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing
>San Jose Convention Center
>March 1-5, 1997

Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  |  1-800-968-8750  |  512-339-6094

More information about the NANOG mailing list