Subj : NEWS::: DogBone
To : John Dovey
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Mon Jun 28 2021 06:31 pm
Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: John Dovey to Rob Swindell on Mon Jun 28 2021 04:02 pm
> Re: NEWS::: DogBone
> By: Rob Swindell to John Dovey on Mon Jun 28 2021 13:31:13
>
> RS> Nice of you to say, but I really was just looking for more clarity on
> RS> your point (about the nodelist "model"?). QWKnet routing (introduced in
>
> I understand. The model I was talking about, was the one that was developed
> under the pressure of the costs of POTS. Whether that's the nodelist or Mail
> hour or many of the other things, it was based on the expense of long
> distance calls.
Those seeem like quote differnet things and not really what I would call "the model". Perhaps being just more specific in your claims about what's broken will prevent future requests for clarity.
> I wrote a piece on here basically saying that I thought that
> the model was outdated for two main reasons: 1. That it was based on POTS
> thinking and 2. It ignores the changes in message exchange and consumption
> that have happened in the last few decades.
> I *know* that I was misunderstood. That those who have continued to run the
> various FTN networks are vested in the mechanisms that have grown to
> prominence. What I was suggesting was that any discussion on a Future 4 Fido
> should consider taking the changes into account. In no way did I suggest
> that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater!
> In fact, I prefaced my remarks with my admiration for the store-and-forward
> nature of the technology an it's built in resiliency. What I felt was a
> vunerability that had crept in was the heirarchical nature imposed in
> service to the nodelist, which struck me as completely counter to the nature
> of the anarchic design of FidoNet.
> I suggested that a range of more resilient routing options would be of use
> and would, in fact, return FidoNet more closely resemble the original vision
> of Tom Jennings. If you have researched him at all, you will know he was an
> out of work anarchist when he conceptualised the network, specifically
> opposed to the concepts of structure and control. Reading between the lines,
> in later years he was suborned by the success of his concept.
> My memory and reading on the origins suggested that the original design was
> in line with the basis on which the ARPANet/InterNet were designed, that is
> to survice the disruption of service caused by disasters; specifically a
> nuclear war. Static routing completely removes this flexibility. I know it
> is simple enough for two sysops to agree to share links, and set that up,
> but it requires agreement and planning. The QWK Network concept is closer, I
> think, even though it still requires some intervention.
>
> RS> QWKnet routing (introduced in
> RS> Synchronet probably back around 1992) was more of a useful thing back
> RS> when phone-modems were used to transfer mail and long-distance charges
> RS> were a
> Acknowledged. Still works now though and without the intervention of a
> central authority...
>
> RS> With DOVE-Net, I just wanted a sort of auto-pilot network: pretty much
> RS> any BBS can join immediately (no manual "approval" or "address
> RS> assignment" process involved) and if/when that node drops (stops
> RS> logging in), it just eventually disappears from the network and its
> RS> "address" is automatically available for reuse. It's worked pretty well
> RS> for my intentions, but I
>
> Exactly. That's my point. It's essentially self maintaining... so much so it
> appears as if most sysops aren't even aware of it.
>
> RS> I don't think that's what FidoNet is all about: Traditionally, FidoNet
> RS> is a more "controlled" network.
> True, that IS what FidoNet has become. The question was whether that was the
> best FUTURE for FidoNet or not.
>
>
> I am afraid I made the assumption when joining this conference that it was
> about "blue-sky" planning and speculation about possible futures for the
> network. Instead I have run into serious opposition to even having the
> discussion.
I'm not opposed to discussing whatever. I just found the claim about "the model" being broken too vague to have merit. Thanks for the clarification.
--
digital man
Rush quote #23:
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Norco, CA WX: 78.8�F, 62.0% humidity, 4 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
