Slashdot Mirror

Teledesic.

http://3csysco.com/Pubs/Telede...
https://www.isoc.org/inet96/pr...

I think we're going to know more after the dust has settled.
Apparently there's also a lively discussion on one of ISOC's mailing-list: https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2012-March/009569.html

It's always the US government because the US government is in complete control over the DNS for the entire planet

that's just what Americans want the rest of the world to think

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
http://www.root-servers.org/

This is an old issue and people have done it better for a long time. The vendors (MS included) CHOSE to use half hearted, stupid, and short sighted solution. I saw proposal papers over a decade ago at the ISOC (Internet Society) NDSS conference:

Practical Approach to Anonymity in Large Scale Electronic Voting Schemes
        Andrea Rierra and Joan Boerrell
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/99/proceedings/papers/riera.pdf

Start there and get serious.

No, Cory Doctorow gets it right. I've watched the video and, to promote my own posts for moment, I summarise above, but he's responding to comments by both Rolf-Dieter Heuer and Lynn Saint-Amour. You can see when he starts to compose his response, it's at 44:10 on the video just after Lynn Saint-Amour says "if it [the web] was patented, the internet community would have found a way to route around it." His remarks also reply to Rolf-Dieter Heuer, who asserted that patents, as a commercial tool, do not serve as a way to measure the basic research which produces "substantial change" instead "incremental change" (13:40) Therefore primary research serves, Heuer believes, as the most important driver of innovation.

In this context, Gurry is speaking up for the idea that traditional IP instruments should be used as the primary tools to drive innovation and to measure it. Don't be fooled by the mild tone of these kinds of meetings, it really is a tunnel-vision view. He's disagreeing with everyone who spoke before him.

In this case, the groupthink is right on and Francis Gurry's counter-history, such as it is, is patently(!) absurd. People are responding to his specific point about the web, which Cory accurately summarised. Thanks for the reasoned deviation from the party line, though. (I see it's been modded flame bait, now, but I disagree) You deserve an equally good counter-argument and I'll try to give it.

The context is a question posed to the panel: "How can countries, how can organisations improve in the area of innovation." In response to that question, and to the idea of measuring innovation that the Global Innovation Index aims to realise, everyone else on the panel talked about the important of things other than (you could say: in addition to) patents and traditional intellectual property tools. Daniele Archibugi included in his discussion of business innovations, an emphasis on the importance of institutions like schools (17:49) and of the infrastructure for innovation -- including the commons of the internet. Naushad Forbes called patents a "limited indicator of new product innovations and an almost non-existent indicator of new service and new business model innovations" (25:53), meaning that they do not account for the range of different kinds of innovation. Leonid Gokhberg talked about "differentiated policy mixes for different industries" as well as for different types of companies (33:57) because "innovation should be taken in its broad sense, including its non-technological, social, and environmental [effects]" (12:14).

Rolf-Dieter Heuer talked about how the Index fails to measure true innovation because it measures patents and not basic science, which he argues is the essential driver of innovation, essentially an inaccurate indicator instead of the thing itself (13:32). He values "substantial change" over "incremental change" (13:40). As an example of this problem, he cites the invention of the world wide web, which because it was not patented would not have shown up in this index, and yet reflects an important innovation of current age (to understate the case).

Francis Gurry addresses his concluding "white card" comments in response to Rolf-Dieter Heuer, but they apply as much to Lynn Saint-Amour's remarks, indeed you can see him begin to compose his words at 44:10 after she says "if it [the web] was patented, the internet community would have found a way to route around it." She talked generally, not terribly on-topic, about how innovators can use openness to their advantage and the value of non-traditional channels of innovation (the last point at 17:48).

In the context of everything that came before, Mr Gurry's specific comments about the world web web reflect a dogmatic misunderstanding of how the web came to be and how it worked, especially in the 1990s. It's a bizarre and irrelevant counter-history, as I assume is being argued elsewhere in this thread as I compose this long and detailed reply. In brief, if the web had been patented and commercialised it would indeed have been routed around, as Lynn Saint-Amour said. Also, it would not have returned the patent profits to basic research, as Francis Gurry suggests, because then it would have become applied research and the funds would have funded incremental change in the commercial environment, to use Professor Heuer's words. Gurry does not seem to have been listening to the academics and policy advisers around him. They're all saying "tradition IP instruments can't do it all." His response is that "intellectual property is a very flexible instrument" (50:13), essentially "oh yes it can too do it all."

I fancy you can get a measure of the in

You need to check your history book. The Internet was paid for by the government and slowly allowed to be handed over to corporations over two decades once it was already long established. Many advances (including computers that you claim are corporate gifts) are actually creations paid for by governments (typically for military purposes) and then handed over to corporations over time for civilian use and implementation.

"...Thus, by 1985, Internet was already well established as a technology supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer communications. Electronic mail was being used broadly across several communities, often with different systems, but interconnection between different mail systems was demonstrating the utility of broad based electronic communications between people....This process of privately-financed augmentation for commercial uses was thrashed out starting in 1988 in a series of NSF-initiated conferences at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on "The Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet" - and on the "com-priv" list on the net itself.. "

Source: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

Also, claiming that some form of fair competition exists between companies is either a misunderstanding of how modern MSCs (multiple service carrier) operate or a blatant manipulation of the truth to suit a rant. No company can or will attempt to overbuild another MSC in a zone unless one of them is AT&T (in which case you can actually get government grants to over-build them, and money from AT&T at times as well so they look better). Between franchise agreements and city divisions where cable companies will cut a city in half (effectively choosing to "compete" only in certain regions where there really is no competition) customers don't have any semblance of real options.

http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/ gives me a nice error message:

Catchable fatal error: Object of class stdClass could not be converted to string in /home/isoc/www.isoc.org/htdocs/wp/wp-content/themes/inc/functions.php on line 69

Does anyone else see that too?

Even if my ISP gave me IPv6, and I had a router that supported IPv6, why would Google/Facebook assume that I'm telepathic to know that I need to type in "ipv6.google.com" to see their website?

On "World IPv6 day" Google, Facebook and others will add AAAA records to their main websites.

8th June: http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/

This only works when your provider has a deal with google to do so, as explained on Google's IPv6 page. For my IPv6 connection at home this works, on my IPv6 capable VPS it doesn't work... So it doesn't just work for everybody, although it will probably work for the rest of the world on IPv6 Day.

I don't really follow you, but I'm pretty sure DNSSEC isn't vulnerable to MitM attacks, since that would be really really damn stupid.

Some MitM methods are discussed in http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/10/pdf/17.pdf if you're curious.

I was however discussing another method which is far simpler. Since DNSSEC doesn't have authentication for glue records and since glue records are essential for Internet operation, you might begin to undertand a problem. Consider being able to intercept all DNS traffic on a network and have a glue record set as root that points to your your own DNSSEC root keys etc. It won't make any difference to a DNSSEC resolver, which will have to accept it as valid by design.

...or try to use them but fail and fallback to IPv4 a millisecond later.

Almost right. If the browser thinks it has IPv6 connectivity it will try, and it will fallback to IPv4. The fallback to IPv4 will take something like 30-60 seconds though!

That's exactly the problem Yahoo faces. People with broken IPv6 connectivity will experience serious delays when visiting their site. This has withheld other large sites, such as Google, from running dual-stack before. A test done by the large German website Heise.de shows the reality is not that rough. During one day they enabled dual-stack access for their website. Among the approximately one million visitors, only five experienced problems due to broken IPv6. After this experiment they decided to simply keep IPv4 + IPv6 enabled. See http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IPv6-Tag-bei-heise-de-Erste-Ergebnisse-1081201.html

Of course this percentage will vary according to the demographic of a site so, as Heise has shown, the best way is to test it. On 8 June, 2011, Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, Akamai and Limelight Networks will be amongst some of the major organisations that will offer their content over IPv6 for a 24-hour "test drive". See http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/

The problem here is the working group wants to limit participation to UN member states only. However, the group's charter says that members ought to be composed of "governments, the private sector, and civil society" , according to this ISOC letter.

I signed the petition and commented that as the value of the Internet is based on the contributions of everyone, it is manifestly unfair not to have open representation in a forum discussing the future of the Internet.

I was thinking more or less the same thing.

The point is that a good domain name system implementation needs to be secure against protocol attacks. DNSSEC secures it against hackers, but makes it more vulnerable to political attacks.

You do know that DNS root servers are located (and co-located) around the world (20+ countries I believe off the top of my head), and they are all equal. The only US-centric part is that the designated maintainers (ICANN and IANA) are US based organizations, in large part due to historically originating in the US, and this does have the benefit being one of the best legal protection for free-speech in the world.

If you want an alternate system, edit your DNS root hints file.

Join the Internet Society, ICANN, and your national domain registrar if you want to make difference.

I just checked, and you're right. My mistake.
I'm surprised, but not very, to see that the jurisdiction issue was part of the Patriot Act.
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/archives/juris.shtml

Except IPv6 is hierarchical, for that very reason. Routing tables can be much, much smaller than they are on IPv4.

Where have you been for the past 10 years? Most ISPs (read: Telcos & Cablecos) have long demonstrated their inability to be honest.

Where have I been? In the trenches.

I was one of the researchers behind the web tripwires project for detecting ISP injected advertisements. I was one of the developers of the RST injection detector that was used to monitor how ISPs were disrupting traffic with injected Resets. And I'm one of the developers of Netalyzr.

And overall, most ISPs are actually honest, and even the dishonest ones have gotten a fair bit better.

EG, Comcast was incredibly dishonest at the start on their BitTorrent shaping (denying what they were doing altogether), but in the end were honest about it once they got caught (it did indeed only affect upload-only BitTorrent flows, we were able to independently verify this), and has become much more transparent about their traffic shaping and port filtering policies since then (they even have done IETF drafts on how their traffic management is done today).

And this is why I believe that thing that really makes a difference is being able to validate that what an ISP says is actually true: If ISPs know that manipulations will be detected, they have a much lower incentive to manipulate traffic. This is why I believe in network transparency.

You notice how you don't have ISPs talking about doing advertisement injection. Why? because its detectable. You notice how most ISPs no longer mess with BitTorrent? Why: because its detectable.

This is the biggest benefit of transparency and enforcing transparency by measuring for violations: it keeps honest ISPs honest, and punishes the dishonest when (not if, but when) you catch them.

The gTLD servers and Registries/Registrars for them are a far cry different than the Root servers. You could do with some educating yourself and get up to speed on just what the Root servers do, how they are maintained, and just who may make changes.

For instance, the K.root-servers.net isn't even located in the US and is totally under physical control of the EU.

Read up before you start saying just anything about the Root servers.

I don't think the US would or even could make changes to the Root. For one, the international community would pull the plug on any control the US has over it, and second, the Operators themselves would not do so and take their responsibility a bit higher than Registrars.

802.11s is the IEEE standard for mesh networking. It works at level 3 in the networking stack which means it abstracts the mesh specific details away from the operating system level.

There is already a project similar to Netsukuku called OLSR which has a 700 node mesh networking in Germany I believe. OLSR works at level 4 and runs on windows, linux, osx, android, etc. It works so well that the IETF has put out a draft spec for a version 2 of the protocol.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

And obviously slashdot has readers who don't know about TCP/IP.

So that's how the Internet works! I always thought it was a series of tubes.

And obviously slashdot has readers who don't know about TCP/IP.

Maybe it's time that the Internet standards get a few clauses added that express these concepts explicitly. Like what Paul said about DNS. A clause like "a nameserver MUST responde truthfully, if technically possible. DNS responses MUST NOT be modified in any way for political, economic or business reasons."

I invite you to write the RFC. It's easy to do, and basically, anybody can write an RFC. There's the infamous evil bit for example. But here's the thing... RFCs are just that: Requests For Ccomment. They don't have any teeth, even if they are frequently referred to. For example, I looked directly at the RFCs in order to develop an SMTP handler a few years back...

There IS an "Internet Standards Organization" or three, and they do often "adopt" an RFC to be an "Internet Standard", but if you look, you'll find that there's no enforcement arm whatsoever! It's up to you, the Internet participant, to require/enforce these standards. And just like the explosion in unregulated 802.11 networking, the Internet's power comes from this completely open, unregulated nature.

Sure, there's a wart or ten. Sorry, that's just how it is. I can name a few others:

1) Large ISPs often ignore the TTL values in name servers and set them to as long as 48 hours. This makes moving servers from location A to location B fraught with hacks, such as putting in a NAT router at the old location to forward traffic to the old "wrong" address to the new "right" one.

2) Mail servers that often don't bounce undeliverable messages, just passing them to /dev/null.

3) "Tricks" played by IE to make it seem "faster" by not negotiating a proper connection to the webserver.

Yes, all of these, (and more!) are highly annoying, but the truth is that violations of standards can't be all that flagrant, or the system breaks and people get upset. So overall, the system works remarkably well.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the Internet didn't happen and we ended up going with AOL's proprietary network?

(shudder)

EMP wasn't necessarily the whole reason for creating the Internet in the first place either.

Nukes were not a motivation for creating the Internet; they motivated the development of packet switching: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml#rand See footnote 5, and note the authors.

I know thats why it was originally invented, but I don't think the modern internet is emp resistant.

That's an urban legend.

These are well-known techniques in the telephony world. AT&T has been using this for many years to combat telecom fraud; knowing who you call means that if you don't pay your bill but another phone number starts calling people in your circle of friends, they can identify that it's you making those calls. Communities of interest have also been examined in the context of IP networks and email. It's an interesting field of research and this seems like a novel analysis, though I'm sure they are doing something very similar within every carrier network.

It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.

"A Brief History of the Internet", Internet Society.

I can't believe no laws were broken in this process. Why can't the EU courts take this up?

Easy - a "standards body" is not an entity with any legal weight. All it is is a group of people who get together and make recommendations that others may choose to follow. It's purely a political process but not at all a legal one. The only value that a standards body has is that other entities (EG: companies) trust it to determine what technologies to implement and in what fashion.

For example, there there is no legal requirement that any software vendor implement TCP or IP. But TCP and IP are detailed by the ISOC. If you are a software company, you will implement your TCP stack in accordance with ISOC standards or your implementation will be considered sub-standard.

But if you screw up your implementation, there's little ISOC can do, and nothing legally. They can say you are bad, they can make recommendations against your software. But that's it.

The only weight that a standards body has is that others trust the insight and recommendations made by the standards body. When a standards body can be legitimately accused of shenanigans, that's pretty much it's end.

Goodbye ISO, it's been nice knowing ye...

The arguments are getting more solid - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion for some good links.

The horizon is now quite short - just 39 x /8 ranges (16 million each) remained as of May 08, and we are consuming 13 x /8's every year (at least we did in 2007). So it's easy to see we run out in 3 years including 2008, assuming steady state - in reality there is growth in consumption, and possibility of an "IPv4 exhaustion panic" when the horizon is down to a year or less. See http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/oecd_durand_20080616.pdf for a presentation by the Comcast IPv6 guy that quotes these stats.

IPv6 will be deployed through provider push in my view, not consumer pull. A given provider, whether cable, telco or wireless, will decide it's going IPv6 and roll it out from the core through aggregation, access, and to home networks (or handsets). Once they reach the home network stage they will simply provide IPv6 devices / set top boxes to customers, who will mostly have no idea they are on IPv6. Customers will still be able to access the IPv4 internet of course, but the provider can manage the home network properly since it's no longer NATed.

If you want to go IPv6 early at home, there are various ISPs in most countries offering it (my UK ISP has done for years), and you can always use IPv6 tunnel brokers over IPv4 access in the interim - this is now very easy to do.

The Rules: (or DA RULZ)

http://www.isoc.org/internet/conduct/cerf-Aug-draft.shtml

http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~acc/docs/arpa--1.html

http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html

http://rfc.net/rfc2430.html

Traffic Shaping Example:

http://rfc.net/rfc3514.html

I wasn't implying anything desparaging, just stating facts. Yes, I'm a grumpy old bat but you mustn't take it personally. Anyway, I doubt very much they teach this stuff in most schools (it's "ancient history" now), but you can read a little about it here, here, and here.

Not clear, see http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2002-01/Uncommon.html - but if they don't have CC statys, then we can certainly sue the for, say, spam being sent across their networks. And the CAN-SPAM act has shown to give significant fines to spammers, consider how many spams are carried by the average ISP...

-Lars

Super Latency!

It's too bad they only linked to the AP story in this submission, which can be found everywhere, and didn't bother to mention the researchers in question (David Dagon, Chris Lee and Wenke Lee of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Niels Provos of Google).

Unfortunately, it's harder to find a direct link to their paper. This was the best I could find, but it doesn't actually have the paper as best I can tell.

Its interesting that this issue is not brought up and discussed more. I understand your point of view about the kludginess of NATs, but as a architect for a large networking company, having worked with scores and scores of corporate networks all over the world, my experience is that NATs are standard in the corporate world, and whether that comes from ignorance or legitimate security concerns is an interesting discussion, but lets not forget the practical reality of the observation.

The fact of the matter is that, currently, NATs are here and they have to be dealt with. Protocols developed long ago, such as FTP, which used embedded IP addresses and separate control connections have been enormous challenges in the networking industry. I have written NAT proxies that support FTP properly, and I can tell you, it is a major pain to get it right, especially when you deal with thousands of concurrent connections churning through the port numbers. *sigh*. So, single connection protocols such as ssh/scp or http cause much less trouble and that is nicer for the networking folks to work with.

In the last decade, a lot of media protocols have become very popular, but unfortunately, in many cases the designers of these protocols simply ignored the issue of NATs. While it is fine to climb up to the top of the ivory tower and declare NATs are bad and your protocol should not be bothered with them, please do not be surprised to hear that hundreds of expensive networking software engineers in scores of different networking companies have to read a 70 page Masters Thesis to understand how to parse your protocol, and of course, then write and maintain tricky, mission critical network protocol software for years on end to deal with it properly. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/drafts/Ther0005_SIP.pdf [columbia.edu]

Is it any wonder SIP has grown much slower than it should have given the underlying wonderful flexibility of the higher level semantics? But no, a budding internet phone service provider ends up buying and setting up complex and expensive SIP NAT traversal devices (google that phrase) just to get going. I suppose protocol researchers do not spend a lot of time working with corporate networks. Unfortunately, the cost of this ignorance has been enormous. Fortunately for most, it was swallowed by large networking companies who have not complained enough perhaps.

By the way, protocol researchers should look at SCTP as the basis for signaling protocols. It is based on IP and is an alternative to TCP and UDP see http://www.isoc.org/briefings/017/ [isoc.org] , and every operating system is on board ... except Microsoft, of course. But there is a standard 3rd party library available ala winsock. Perhaps, just as they hated winsock and the internet (and still do, IMHO) until it became too popular to ignore, perhaps so it will be with SCTP.

--
I do not want to write forever, but reviving the question from my first paragraph, it is interesting to think about whether corporations will be comfortable giving up the anonymity and security benefits (if only illusionary) of their NATs when they are presented with the opportunity to provide an unlimited number of cheap, routable IPv6 addresses to their employees. I honestly have no idea. It would make my job easier, but surfing slashdot with my personal corporate IP address would make it hard for me to be ... an Anonymous Coward

Its interesting that this issue is not brought up and discussed more. I understand your point of view about the kludginess of NATs, but as a architect for a large networking company, having worked with scores and scores of corporate networks all over the world, my experience is that NATs are standard in the corporate world, and whether that comes from ignorance or legitimate security concerns is an interesting discussion, but lets not forget the practical reality of the observation.

The fact of the matter is that, currently, NATs are here and they have to be dealt with. Protocols developed long ago, such as FTP, which used embedded IP addresses and separate control connections have been enormous challenges in the networking industry. I have written NAT proxies that support FTP properly, and I can tell you, it is a major pain to get it right, especially when you deal with thousands of concurrent connections churning through the port numbers. *sigh*. So, single connection protocols such as ssh/scp or http cause much less trouble and that is nicer for the networking folks to work with.

In the last decade, a lot of media protocols have become very popular, but unfortunately, in many cases the designers of these protocols simply ignored the issue of NATs. While it is fine to climb up to the top of the ivory tower and declare NATs are bad and your protocol should not be bothered with them, please do not be surprised to hear that hundreds of expensive networking software engineers in scores of different networking companies have to read a 70 page Masters Thesis to understand how to parse your protocol, and of course, then write and maintain tricky, mission critical network protocol software for years on end to deal with it properly. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/drafts/Ther0005_SIP.pdf

Is it any wonder SIP has grown much slower than it should have given the underlying wonderful flexibility of the higher level semantics? But no, a budding internet phone service provider ends up buying and setting up complex and expensive SIP NAT traversal devices (google that phrase) just to get going. I suppose protocol researchers do not spend a lot of time working with corporate networks. Unfortunately, the cost of this ignorance has been enormous. Fortunately for most, it was swallowed by large networking companies who have not complained enough perhaps.

By the way, protocol researchers should look at SCTP as the basis for signaling protocols. It is based on IP and is an alternative to TCP and UDP see http://www.isoc.org/briefings/017/ , and every operating system is on board ... except Microsoft, of course. But there is a standard 3rd party library available ala winsock. Perhaps, just as they hated winsock and the internet (and still do, IMHO) until it became too popular to ignore, perhaps so it will be with SCTP.

--
I do not want to write forever, but reviving the question from my first paragraph, it is interesting to think about whether corporations will be comfortable giving up the anonymity and security benefits (if only illusionary) of their NATs when they are presented with the opportunity to provide an unlimited number of cheap, routable IPv6 addresses to their employees. I honestly have no idea. It would make my job easier, but surfing slashdot with my personal corporate IP address would make it hard for me to be ... an Anonymous Coward

3-2. Place more infrastructure in Europe and elsewhere that bypasses North America. It's only the US bottleneck that's going to be a problem.

Major correction. The internet was not designed to withstand nuclear attack.

The short story is that the idea of packet switching was independently by several groups. One group, headed by Paul Barand at RAND, was looking at creating networks that could survive major levels of damage, including nuclear warfare. However other people, such as Leonard Kleinrock at MIT, came up with the idea for different reasons. The actual implementations that became the internet were mostly based on the work at MIT, and the public Internet has never been designed to survive nuclear war.

See A Brief History of the Internet for more details.

Check out the P-IMAP standard for info on one way Push is implemented.

http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-maes-lemo nade-p-imap-12.txt

One implementation of this standard is the Consilient Push system, recently made available for free from http://www.consilient.com/. It runs a variety of mobile devices, including some low end phones. The software is free to download and use, but you still need a data plan from your carrier.

Regarding the resistance to nuclear attack, see footnote 5:
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml#F ootnotes

damnit, get it straight

it's

IP on everything!
http://ietf20.isoc.org/videos/ip_on_everything.jpg

"State run companies *DO NOT INNOVATE*.

I love to read such claims on posted the internet.. Nice high irony factor.

I'd love to see them try to sue Apple.

In February 1995, an Apple petition to open up more spectrum was approved. The public now has 10 Mhz for license-free use. Apple does not own it. Everyone must use equipment designed for the band.

...

VHR would provide the capacity of moving information at rates exceeding 20 Mbps. These would be primarily in-building networks, but the development of these systems is just in the formative stages.

• Why do people in the developing world need bicycles? Because they can be used not only for transportation put to pump water.
• Why do people in the developing world need radios? Because they are important educational tools.
• Why could they possibly want video cameras? Because they are tools for encouraging self-representation in broadcast media.
• Why could those poor starving people in Africa need cell phones? Because they are tools for monitoring water safety, obtaining credit and making payments, determining where fishing happens, or simply communicating across distances without drums and smoke signals let alone to demand accountability from those unstable democracies you seem to assume exist everywhere

The Internet Society is a non-profit, non-governmental, international, professional membership organization. Its more than 100 organization members and over 20,000 individual members in over 180 nations worldwide represent a veritable who's who of the Internet community. ...

1775 Wiehle Ave.,Suite 102
Reston, VA 20190-5108, USA
tel: +1 703 326 9880
fax: +1 703 326 9881
Email: info@isoc.org.

4, rue des Falaises
CH-1205 Geneva
Switzerland tel: +41 22 807 1444
fax: +41 22 807 1445
http://www.isoc.org/

PIR, a not-for-profit corporation created by the Internet Society (ISOC) in 2002, manages the .ORG top-level domain (TLD) and plays a number of roles in helping .ORG thrive. PIR's primary responsibility is managing the database of .ORG domain names (Internet addresses), which it does with support from its technical provider, Afilias Limited. That database connects individuals surfing the Web to the .ORG sites they seek. http://www.pir.org/AboutPIR/AboutPIR.aspx

Afilias Limited is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland with U.S. offices near Philadelphia, PA, sales offices in London, UK, an operations center in Toronto Canada, and operational offices in New Delhi, India http://www.afilias.info/about_afilias/

Except that QoS isn't needed, period. I don't know about you, but I've had excellent reliability with A/V over the net without any QoS routing. If we get to the point where traffic congestion changes this, we have much bigger problems. Dropped packets or heavily delayed packets screw up everything, not just voice traffic. TCP/IP basically falls over dead if latency is over a few tens of milliseconds. That's why satellite internet sucks so badly.

http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2004-01/latency.html

I'm not convinced that ISPs should be in the business of being anything other than a bulk pipe. If they want to provide special services to their customers, that's fine, but not at the expense of being a bulk pipe.

Yes, it's been done on 10Mb Wired Ethernet.

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/06/proce edings/html/2006/papers/device_id-final.pdf

From the article, (emphasis mine):

As a doctoral student, Dr Hall analysed the RF signals of fifteen devices from six manufacturers, and found it was possible to distinguish clearly, even between devices from the same manufacturer.

So it doesn't matter if everyone uses Centrino - they can still tell them apart. The key point is that no two devices are identical - there are always differences in the manufacturing process that makes them behave differently. Sure, at 10 or 54 Mbps they look the same but when you sample at 100 Msps (or higher), small differences are detectable.

For more info on this area, here is a paper [warning PDF] from the Dilon Project at Iowa State University.

You need a better textbook. The idea that the Arpanet was designed to be a survivable network is a particularly persistent myth.

It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.

A Brief History of the Internet, version 3.32
Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

See also:

Charles Herzfeld on ARPAnet and Computers:

ARPAnet - A Network for Sharing Computer Resources

Why was the ARPAnet started? Most of the early "history" on the subject is wrong. As Director of ARPA at the time, I can tell you our intent. The ARPAnet was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. Rather, the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_Ch arles_Herzfeld.htm

Lightning supports CalDAV for sharing calendar information. Apple announced yesterday that Leopard iCal Server and the iCal application will both talk CalDAV, they released the server at http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/collaboration. Bedework is making a lot of progress as an institutional calendar server.

Oracle has a CalDAV stack. IBM has some stuff in the works as well.

It looks like exchange will have a fight on its hands very soon.

I've been helping on a CalDAV plugin for Outlook called Open Connector, which allows Outlook to take to CalDAV servers like Apple's and Bedework. We always need help, if you have a lot of experience developing COM apps in C++, come help out.