Subj : linked
To : Frank Vest
From : Peter Knapper
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 10:14 pm
Hi Frank,
FV> No penalty involved there. Why would one fly a PVT flag in the
FV> Nodelist and then list a phone number?
I have no idea why someone might do that, however its still possible to contact
the end node and request a phone number for direct PRIVATE communications.
Remember this paragraph as REF #1 for below....
FV> Same for IP Nodes. Why fly an IP flag and not list your IP/domain?
As I alluded in my previous mail, thats one place where the PSTN and the
Internet differ. When Fidonet started using the PSTN there was no common index
(phone book) that could be used, so the Nodelist was born to contain that
detail. However the Internet does already have such an index (the DNS), so why
not use it? Why does Fidonet have to re-invent the wheel?
PK> When Fidonet started, it NEEDED to create the Nodelist, there was no
PK> common PHONE directory available to look up. With IP, such a directory
PK> already exists (the DNS). If Fidonet ignores that, then you will end
FV> Without listing the IP/domain in the Nodelist, there is little way to
FV> use the DNS except for a default domain like fidonet.net or something
FV> like that.
Well for all the times I have used fidonet.net to reach an end IP node, its
worked fine for me. If the node is not listed, the mail is Routed.
I can only see Fidonet requiring everyone to use a Nodelist entry for DNS info,
as a truely backward step, and as is currently done by Zones 2 & 7 (yes 7!) the
"rest" of Fidonet will continue doing it THEIR way because Fidonet does not
want to work they way THEY want to work. Now is Fidonet here FOR its Sysops, or
are the Sysops here FOR Fidonet?
As a guide, a quick analysis of the fidonet.net Domain shows to me that at
least 150+ defined NETWORKS of IP nodes exist in the Zone 2 and Zone 7 sections
of fidonet.net, while a TOTAL of round 50-100 NODES exist within the rest of
Fidonet combined. Are we going to totally ignore the way a vast majority of
Fidonet IP users appear to wish to work? Surely this should tell us something?
I suspect the prime reason the English speaking Zones have not been aware of
the growth of fidonet.net usage is simply because of the language differences,
we (the English speaking Zones) really are ignorant of how non-English speaking
Zones operate.
PK> Current standards prohibit using a FLAG for that info, so I don't
PK> see how one can keep that info in the Nodelist without breaking
PK> SOMETHING at least.
FV> Create a new standard.
A new standard what, Nodelist? You really DO like taking on big tasks....;-)
PK> However, if you are NOT suggesting to put <some.domain> into the
PK> Nodelist, then the MOST practical place left is the DNS, which is PK>
fine with me.
FV> And use some default domain for Fidonet?
That really does seem to be the most obvious workable solution to me. It
requires ZERO additions to the existing Nodelist, perhaps just some tidy up and
agreement on what FLAGS should be used, and is very easily implemented (from a
technical perspective). At least it would not split fidonet in half.
PK> Except that means Fidonet re-invents the wheel by re-creating
PK> what already exists, but that may just keep some people
PK> happy........;-)
FV> To do this would require that Fidonet become a "legal" entity. I'm not
FV> sure how that would fly. :/
Yes, I said that a bit "tongue-in-cheek"....;-)
PK> However we don't really need a Finger Daemon, the IBN flag in the
PK> Nodelist is all thats needed to tell people to find BinkP by looking
PK> up the DNS for that node.
FV> And for those that use telnet mailers? or FTP? What about future
FV> protocols and mailers? Do we add flags to no end for them?
No, Fidonet needs to settle on an IP transmission standard fairly quickly
(probably based on the existing BinkP protocol), similar to the PSTN standard.
We currently use several flags to help the PSTN side of things (V24,V32,V42b,
etc), a few similar ones for IP should not be too onerous. While FTP is
excellent for moving files around the IP world, it has a few disadvantages in
other areas that leave it less than desirable for ad-hoc connectivity (IMHO).
Telnet is another strange one, it was designed for Human interactive use, so it
actually places a quite high demand on the network because it usually attempts
to send data character by character (as per keyboard entry) rather than sending
it a block at a time. Some Telnet implementations allow a mode that does a form
of "demand buffering" that helps in this regard, but as this is only optional,
not all implementations allow for it.
Thats actually one of the nice but dangerous things about the Internet, so much
of it is interoperable with other components, but can leave you wanting in
other (unexpeced) areas....;-)
Cheers..............pk.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
