Re:...when pigs fly and IPv6 is implemented
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 1
Democratic isn't the solution. I'd say that, just like the United States, a republic is more the idea. For the same reasons that ever single little law can't have a general vote in the US, the Internet can't have every little priority of ever little packet decided by everyone. I certainly don't want MediaOne, by service provider, deciding my bandwidth allotment based on every little packet I send.
What provider was this, if you don't mind me asking? I know that it's stated in many usage agreements, however, it's a matter of public servers vs private ones.
The idea of priority is decided based on the type of data inside of the packet 'stream', instead of simply taking the labels on the packets for granted.
Re:Application Developers..
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 2
Yea, thats what I was thinking, really. The idea is great, but the enforcement of it simply can't exist beyond a simply source/destination based rule..
Well, right now, there is quite literally NO intelligence involed beyond a simply netmask to determine where to hell to send the packet. I'm not so sure that intoducing *SOME* intelligence is such as bad idea, if it could be enforced somehow.. 8-(
Re:Network Dynamism issues
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 2
This is a darned good post, I gotta say. IPv6 provides the 'smart network' by simply stating in the actual packets what priority needs to be given, and negates the need for some sort of a predictive algorithm to logically figure out what needs a higher priority.
My main concern, however, is that fact that application developers would still spoof this out, providing a higher priority for their traffic, hence, a higher thoughput, then needed. Blech...
Yea, but the issue I can see is how it's going to actually be enforced. It's a great idea, but beyond the ability to prioritize based on either destination or source, it seems to m that developers will eventually spoof it, and hence, negate it.
Well, it could always just look for known protocols, such as those used for video vs email, etc, tag that packet, and treat all other packets to the destination port/host as the priority of that it has 'decided' it should be.
It's really a vague mapping of what the routers think the data really is. Not the best idea, but if they could flag at least the more common video/audio streaming 'paths', it could help deliver these with a lower latency. Personally, I dunno if I'm comfortable about it. If you look at it on a really theoretical lvl, providers could start to analyze what kind of traffic I'm 'consuming', and hence, target my email with yet more spam based on what I've been doing. Blech.. More data to profile on..
Re:Application Developers..
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 1
DoH! Should have been 'or', not 'of' higher priority web browsing.
Application Developers..
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 5
One has to wonder, if these 'smart routers' ever come to fruition on the internet on a large scale, how long it would take developers to beging to 'camaflague' their applicaitons data to be those of higher priority purposes, and use this as a 'selling point'. Even if there would be really no basis for this, could it simply become a selling point for 'High Priority' instant messaging of web browsing, and hence make the entire idea innefective?
As a disclaimer, I'm not saying that this SHOULD happen, simply that I could see developers trying to get their applications to utilize smart switches and routers at a higher priority then they should. Some people just don't know how it all really works, and might be 'sold' on the idea of their emails going thru at a higher priority then they really need to.
And I can PROMISE you that neither of the above solutions can possibly handle several thousand queries per second on a table with over 100k rows.
The above products, while not shabby themselves, are simply not in the same league. They are different solutions for different problems. Compare a Solaris box to an S/390 IBM mainframe. Different tools for different work.
Well, there are a few requirements to being considered Instant Messaging. The first requirment is that of an entity. In order for an entity to communicate in realtime with another entity, they must exist, and be reserved and enforced by the protocol itself. None of the original IRC specifications came even close to this requirement. Not just authentication, but the ownership of an entity, to be reserved exclusivly for a given party, and enforced server network wide.
Yes, I can give you that IRC is an example of an rudimentary IM system. There are many examples of IM systems. But it was not meant, nor was it designed, for IM. It was designed and continues to work as an open 'groupchat' implementation. It was build around a subscription model, in that users subscribe to a given 'channel'. While this gives the appearence of Instant Messaging, its more like 'Instant Chatroom'. Standard SMTP email systems could also serve as an IM system, simply by using SMTP email headers, and allow servers to translate headers to be used for presence.
And yes, I do expect ICQ to be able to see AIM, which is specifically the way the Jabber network works. By use an open namespace, any given system can be segmented simply by a URL. This means that an entire closed namespace can be represented by one open namespace. Yes, you still need to have an account in that closed namespace, but that is a compromise due to the limitations of the external systems.
And I'm not downplaying IRC at all. Jabber specifically includes a transport that gateways jabber users to IRC servers. This was one of the very first transports, and was the original groupchat interface used before the transports for groupchat had been written.
IRC has its place. But its not for user notification and instant messaging.
Nope, not even close. IRC is a chat network. There is no such thing as presence notification, etc, which are pretty much required for instant messaging.
Have you ever actually read the RFC before? The IRC protocol is an old, outdated hack. At least the developer had the foresight to say it wasn't gonna scale:
9.1 Scalability It is widely recognized that this protocol does not scale
sufficiently well when used in a large arena. The main problem comes
from the requirement that all servers know about all other servers
and users and that information regarding them be updated as soon as
it changes. It is also desirable to keep the number of servers low
so that the path length between any two points is kept minimal and
the spanning tree as strongly branched as possible.
Re:I hope she makes a lot of money off of this
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 2
To high on the cool vs cost graph..:-) Besides, the phones at least function as they should, just as any other cell would. A Yugo, on the other hand, shouldn't travel over 35 miles per hour..:-)
Only really an issue when the antenna is beaming energy directly next to your brain. In this case, this isn't held up to your ear, like a typical cancer phone..:-)
One of the biggest reason I use one of those little bud earphone/mics on mine whenever I can..
Slashdot Mirror
Democratic isn't the solution. I'd say that, just like the United States, a republic is more the idea. For the same reasons that ever single little law can't have a general vote in the US, the Internet can't have every little priority of ever little packet decided by everyone. I certainly don't want MediaOne, by service provider, deciding my bandwidth allotment based on every little packet I send.
What provider was this, if you don't mind me asking? I know that it's stated in many usage agreements, however, it's a matter of public servers vs private ones.
The idea of priority is decided based on the type of data inside of the packet 'stream', instead of simply taking the labels on the packets for granted.
Yea, thats what I was thinking, really. The idea is great, but the enforcement of it simply can't exist beyond a simply source/destination based rule..
Well, right now, there is quite literally NO intelligence involed beyond a simply netmask to determine where to hell to send the packet. I'm not so sure that intoducing *SOME* intelligence is such as bad idea, if it could be enforced somehow.. 8-(
This is a darned good post, I gotta say. IPv6 provides the 'smart network' by simply stating in the actual packets what priority needs to be given, and negates the need for some sort of a predictive algorithm to logically figure out what needs a higher priority.
My main concern, however, is that fact that application developers would still spoof this out, providing a higher priority for their traffic, hence, a higher thoughput, then needed. Blech...
Yea, but the issue I can see is how it's going to actually be enforced. It's a great idea, but beyond the ability to prioritize based on either destination or source, it seems to m that developers will eventually spoof it, and hence, negate it.
Well, it could always just look for known protocols, such as those used for video vs email, etc, tag that packet, and treat all other packets to the destination port/host as the priority of that it has 'decided' it should be.
It's really a vague mapping of what the routers think the data really is. Not the best idea, but if they could flag at least the more common video/audio streaming 'paths', it could help deliver these with a lower latency. Personally, I dunno if I'm comfortable about it. If you look at it on a really theoretical lvl, providers could start to analyze what kind of traffic I'm 'consuming', and hence, target my email with yet more spam based on what I've been doing. Blech.. More data to profile on..
DoH! Should have been 'or', not 'of' higher priority web browsing.
One has to wonder, if these 'smart routers' ever come to fruition on the internet on a large scale, how long it would take developers to beging to 'camaflague' their applicaitons data to be those of higher priority purposes, and use this as a 'selling point'. Even if there would be really no basis for this, could it simply become a selling point for 'High Priority' instant messaging of web browsing, and hence make the entire idea innefective?
As a disclaimer, I'm not saying that this SHOULD happen, simply that I could see developers trying to get their applications to utilize smart switches and routers at a higher priority then they should. Some people just don't know how it all really works, and might be 'sold' on the idea of their emails going thru at a higher priority then they really need to.
And magically, I got modded down with at least 4 trolls.. 8( I'm thinking that the moderators where having fun today..
One line of the entire book makes the statement. The story was regarding a review of the book. 8)
And I can PROMISE you that neither of the above solutions can possibly handle several thousand queries per second on a table with over 100k rows.
The above products, while not shabby themselves, are simply not in the same league. They are different solutions for different problems. Compare a Solaris box to an S/390 IBM mainframe. Different tools for different work.
Well, there are a few requirements to being considered Instant Messaging. The first requirment is that of an entity. In order for an entity to communicate in realtime with another entity, they must exist, and be reserved and enforced by the protocol itself. None of the original IRC specifications came even close to this requirement. Not just authentication, but the ownership of an entity, to be reserved exclusivly for a given party, and enforced server network wide.
Yes, I can give you that IRC is an example of an rudimentary IM system. There are many examples of IM systems. But it was not meant, nor was it designed, for IM. It was designed and continues to work as an open 'groupchat' implementation. It was build around a subscription model, in that users subscribe to a given 'channel'. While this gives the appearence of Instant Messaging, its more like 'Instant Chatroom'. Standard SMTP email systems could also serve as an IM system, simply by using SMTP email headers, and allow servers to translate headers to be used for presence.
And yes, I do expect ICQ to be able to see AIM, which is specifically the way the Jabber network works. By use an open namespace, any given system can be segmented simply by a URL. This means that an entire closed namespace can be represented by one open namespace. Yes, you still need to have an account in that closed namespace, but that is a compromise due to the limitations of the external systems.
And I'm not downplaying IRC at all. Jabber specifically includes a transport that gateways jabber users to IRC servers. This was one of the very first transports, and was the original groupchat interface used before the transports for groupchat had been written.
IRC has its place. But its not for user notification and instant messaging.
And this story is about Jabber. Your point? Jabber uses decentralized servers, and the DNS namespace for servers, simular to email..
Nope, not even close. IRC is a chat network. There is no such thing as presence notification, etc, which are pretty much required for instant messaging.
As opposed to your email, where, if your server goes down.. Umm, And if their server is down.. Umm.. 8-P
*ROTFL*
Have you ever actually read the RFC before? The IRC protocol is an old, outdated hack. At least the developer had the foresight to say it wasn't gonna scale:
9.1 Scalability It is widely recognized that this protocol does not scale
sufficiently well when used in a large arena. The main problem comes
from the requirement that all servers know about all other servers
and users and that information regarding them be updated as soon as
it changes. It is also desirable to keep the number of servers low
so that the path length between any two points is kept minimal and
the spanning tree as strongly branched as possible.
To high on the cool vs cost graph.. :-) Besides, the phones at least function as they should, just as any other cell would. A Yugo, on the other hand, shouldn't travel over 35 miles per hour.. :-)
Paper can be recycled. I'd say using paper probrably saved more trees then using plastic..
:-)
As long as they're replanted, etc..
NOW THAT would simply ROCK!
And I have trouble finding a 35 cents when I reall yneed to use a pay phone. Now I'm supposed to fork out 10$? :-)
Provide cheap access to wireless? Yes.. Replace pay phones? *BBWAHHAHA*
Only really an issue when the antenna is beaming energy directly next to your brain. In this case, this isn't held up to your ear, like a typical cancer phone.. :-)
One of the biggest reason I use one of those little bud earphone/mics on mine whenever I can..
Solitaire doesn't compete any more with commercial card games then Wordpad competes with Microsoft Word 2000 or Wordperfect..
Any OS needs to have basic tools. That does not mean that they should include fully fledged bundled packages.
Releasing for free was not what they did wrong. Releasing it bundled for free with the OS is what they did wrong.