Subj : linked
To   : Peter Knapper
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 06:08 pm

On (15 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest...

Hello Peter,

FV> Same for IP Nodes. Why fly an IP flag and not list your IP/domain?
PK> As I alluded in my previous mail, thats one place where the PSTN and
PK> the Internet differ. When Fidonet started using the PSTN there was no
PK> common index (phone book) that could be used, so the Nodelist was born
PK> to contain that detail. However the Internet does already have such an
PK> index (the DNS), so why not use it? Why does Fidonet have to re-invent
PK> the wheel?

No reason to re-invent the wheel. The wheel (Nodelist) is fine. The
wheel (DNS) is fine. The other wheels are fine too. The problem is
that there are too many wheels? How the heck do we steer this thing?!?
:-)

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

Fidonet still needs the Nodelist. IMHO, it always will. When Fidonet
doesn't need its own Nodelist, Fidonet will not be Fidonet.

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.
PK> Well for all the times I have used fidonet.net to reach an end IP
PK> node, its worked fine for me. If the node is not listed, the mail is
PK> Routed.

There's the key. Routed. If the Node is not listed in the Nodelist or
the DNS, the message is routed. If the default DNS is fidonet.net,
then all Nodes that wish to be contactable would need to be listed in
the fidonet.net DNS?

PK> I can only see Fidonet requiring everyone to use a Nodelist entry for
PK> DNS info, as a truely backward step, and as is currently done by Zones
PK> 2 & 7 (yes 7!) the "rest" of Fidonet will continue doing it THEIR way
PK> because Fidonet does not want to work they way THEY want to work. Now
PK> is Fidonet here FOR its Sysops, or are the Sysops here FOR Fidonet?

Ok. The majority rules... no matter what?

PK> As a guide, a quick analysis of the fidonet.net Domain shows to me
PK> that at least 150+ defined NETWORKS of IP nodes exist in the Zone 2
PK> and Zone 7 sections of fidonet.net, while a TOTAL of round 50-100
PK> NODES exist within the rest of Fidonet combined. Are we going to
PK> totally ignore the way a vast majority of Fidonet IP users appear to
PK> wish to work? Surely this should tell us something?

How many NODES of the 9000+ in Fidonet use fidonet.net?

PK> I suspect the prime reason the English speaking Zones have not been
PK> aware of the growth of fidonet.net usage is simply because of the
PK> language differences, we (the English speaking Zones) really are
PK> ignorant of how non-English speaking Zones operate.

Many Zones don't know how other 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.
PK> A new standard what, Nodelist? You really DO like taking on big
PK> tasks....;-)

I'm gonna start telepathy again if you don't behave. :->

A new standard flag.

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.

DNS is fine as a fallback default. I just think that there needs to be
some indication in the Nodelist that the Node is IP capable. For POTs
or IP, Fidonet must have a Nodelist and entries for the Nodes in the
Nodelist telling where to "call" to contact that Node. Until Fidonet
starts using nothing but IP addresses for access, Fidonet will need
the Nodelist and entries to indicate the Nodes in Fidonet with where
to "call" to transfer mail. I hope we never get to the point of not
needing a Nodelist.

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?

PK> No, Fidonet needs to settle on an IP transmission standard fairly
PK> quickly (probably based on the existing BinkP protocol), similar to

How? There are too many already. binkp, ftp, telnet. Of which, telnet
seems to handle the old POTS protocols.

PK> the PSTN standard. We currently use several flags to help the PSTN
PK> side of things (V24,V32,V42b, etc), a few similar ones for IP should

The flags you mention are not protocol flags. They are connection
ability flags. None of the flags you mention tell what protocols can
be used by the Node. Flags for DSL, cable modem, dial-up isp and such
would fit better in your above statement.

Regards,

Frank

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19

--- PPoint 3.01
* Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.