In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Le Chaud Lapin <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Probably no real demand; else it would exist.

> God forbid that a doctor would ever utter these words to
> a patient with terminal illness.

Perhaps uncompassionate, but often still true. However, we
do not need to be concerned with compassion about computer
networks. So "The Truth" (whatever that might be) matters
far more than decorum.

> There is a real demand to fix major problems with computer
> networking.

No and yes: There are certain problems with computer networking.
There is _some_ demand to fix them. But not a lot because most
people are fairly satisfied with networking as-is.

The Best is the enemy of the Good. Or in this case: The Good
is the enemy of the Best. It reduces the drive to improve.
"Satisficing". IBM PC architecture is horrible, x86 is
bletcherous, according to "experts". Yet both persist.

> There is a real demand for a generalized solution to the
> mobility problem. But no solution exists.

Many people seem happy with IEEE 802.11b/g for medium range and
Bluetooth for short-range. This layered approach is very much how
the Internet was built. A network of networks. Minimal direction,
and lots of local choice. I could go to Greentooth and my 802.11g
wouldn't care.

> There is real demand for integrated security for network
> programming. But no solution exists.

Many people seem happy with SSL, HTTPS, certificates, etc.
Fewer seem happy with JS, java and especially ActiveX.
But this has nothing to do with the languages, and everything
to do with site security and client behaviours. MS has chosen
some egregious defaults (useradmin, autoexec HTML email).

> There is real demand for a naming system that is far better
> than DNS. But no solution exists.

Many people are happy with DNS. Glass half-full, half-empty,
or twice as large as necessary?

> There is real demand for large-scale multicasting.

There is. And this one is the least solved. Caching proxies
help in some situations.

> There is real demand for a "socket" model that is not as
> horrific as sockets.

So make your name by creating one!

> There is real demand for many things, but no solutions exist
> because those who would provide the solutions simply are not.

Do not complain what others are not doing. They have a right
to be lazy. Do it yourself!

> The fact that $300 million has been ear-marked to do what
> IPv6 failed to do is testament to the demand:

IPv6 has problems, arguable worse than IPv4.
That's why it hasn't been much used.

Some solutions are "good enough". Better solutions might be
possible. Or they might just introduce further (perhaps worse)
problems. This is what politicians frequently do with new laws.
Human beings react, and that reaction can be larger than the
original impulse.

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Le Chaud Lapin <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>
> No and yes: There are certain problems with computer networking.
> There is _some_ demand to fix them. But not a lot because most
> people are fairly satisfied with networking as-is.

Mmmm...I don't buy this. I think that people are fairly _disappointed_
with networking as-is, and have grown accustomed to disappointment. In
fact, in about 20 minutes, I am going to go into my office and watch a
highly paid IT person try, yet again after 3 days, to fix problems with
our network so I can (1) print (2) share files, which I have not been
able to do because of a glitch that seems to affect only a few of us.
He will fail most likely, not by virtue of his intelligence or
knowledge, but due to the complexity (the ugly kind) of our network. I
will then email my documents to the administrative assistant, and she
will print them out for me, and I will go back to my desk, and not
complain to anyone but USENET. This situation is very common. To say
"a solution would exist if it were a real problem" is an excuse for
those who have been charged to find a solution but have not.

> The Best is the enemy of the Good. Or in this case: The Good
> is the enemy of the Best. It reduces the drive to improve.
> "Satisficing". IBM PC architecture is horrible, x86 is
> bletcherous, according to "experts". Yet both persist.

True. But the risk of conversion is far less with software than
hardware. Two protocols on my computer because I want to see if the
new is better than the old? No problem. Two PC's on my desk because I
want to see if the new is better than the old? No way.

> Many people seem happy with IEEE 802.11b/g for medium range and
> Bluetooth for short-range. This layered approach is very much how
> the Internet was built. A network of networks. Minimal direction,
> and lots of local choice. I could go to Greentooth and my 802.11g
> wouldn't care.

I just read a post by someone in alt.internet.wireless who is looking
for a solution to the mobility problem for a factory. He didn't write,
"I'm looking for a solution to the mobility problem", but in fact,
that's what he wants. And I've seen many other similar requests, like
university admins hoping to allow "roaming" accross campus networks,
field workers wanting roaming for their data-gathering devices. There
have been 7 new companies in the last year alone that I know of you are
trying to do "mobility". Again, the demand is very great. But after
so many broken promises, people learn to cope. That is *not* to say
that if someone actually did make something of virtue, that people
would continue using ripped nets to catch fish.

>
> Many people are happy with DNS. Glass half-full, half-empty,
> or twice as large as necessary?

Doesn't matter how much water is in the glass if the glass was
initially empty.

> > There is real demand for a "socket" model that is not as
> > horrific as sockets.
>
> So make your name by creating one!

I think I will. Hold your breath.

> > There is real demand for many things, but no solutions exist
> > because those who would provide the solutions simply are not.
>
> Do not complain what others are not doing. They have a right
> to be lazy. Do it yourself!

Not with government money. The whole point behind the grant process is
to avoid giving money to researchers who will simply squander it. They
have a right to be lazy if they do research using their own money.

> > The fact that $300 million has been ear-marked to do what
> > IPv6 failed to do is testament to the demand:
>
> IPv6 has problems, arguable worse than IPv4.
> That's why it hasn't been much used.

I say a lot of these problems could have been foreseen. It took 15
years and an immeasurable waste of resources to figure that out. Back
in 1991, anyone who would have claimed that IPNG (Big-Internet) was
going to fail because there were too many cooks in the kitchen would
have been heckled out of the room. I am waiting to see what happens
with GENI.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Le Chaud Lapin <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
> I think that people are fairly _disappointed_ with networking
> as-is, and have grown accustomed to disappointment.

Semantics. Unless they're willing to do something,
this is equivalent to "fairly satisfied".

> In fact, in about 20 minutes, I am going to go into my
> office and watch a highly paid IT person try, yet again
> after 3 days, to fix problems with our network so I can
> (1) print (2) share files, which I have not been able to do
> because of a glitch that seems to affect only a few of us.

Unless you have unusual internal firewalls that aren't being
maintained as necessary, I strongly suspect the network is blameless.
The problem most likely lies in MS-Windows.

> To say "a solution would exist if it were a real problem"
> is an excuse for those who have been charged to find a
> solution but have not.

I hear your pain, but who has been so charged? No-one here, AFAIK.
And if some readers _are_ working on these problems, employment
confidentiality would prohibit them from discussing it.

> True. But the risk of conversion is far less with software
> than hardware. Two protocols on my computer because I want
> to see if the new is better than the old? No problem.
> Two PC's on my desk because I want to see if the new is
> better than the old? No way.

I do not understand. I would expect precisely the contrary:
two+ PCs is easy with a KVM. Expecting different software/protocols
to co-exist peacefully within an OS might be very difficult.

> a factory. He didn't write, "I'm looking for a solution to
> the mobility problem", but in fact, that's what he wants.
> And I've seen many other similar requests, like university

But if you don't even know enough to know where to go, how
can anyone help you? You'll be at the mercy of travelling
salesmen and their broken prosises. FWIW, I know of perfectly
working multi-acre wireless sites. In electrically very
noisy areas. You just need competant designers.

> Doesn't matter how much water is in the glass if the glass
> was initially empty.

But it is not. There are lots of tantalizing services.

>> Do not complain what others are not doing. They have a right
>> to be lazy. Do it yourself!

> Not with government money. The whole point behind the
> grant process is to avoid giving money to researchers who
> will simply squander it. They have a right to be lazy if
> they do research using their own money.

You expect government to solve problems? Or even know
where to start? You must be as french as your nym sounds.
Why would they know? Are their motivations aligned? How?

What technical problem has any government ever solved? The dutch
have been beating back the sea/rivers for hundreds of years.
But that is an environmental problem solved by technical means.
The US went to the moon. But the moon was not a problem. Lunites
weren't about to invade The US FCC allocates EM spectrum.
That is a technical problem (well, closer to homestead) but I'd
hardly call the FCC's solution any good!

> I say a lot of these problems could have been foreseen.
> It took 15 years and an immeasurable waste of resources to
> figure that out.

I suspect mostly government resources, which were seized
precisely to be wasted.

> Back in 1991, anyone who would have claimed that IPNG
> (Big-Internet) was going to fail because there were too many
> cooks in the kitchen would have been heckled out of the room.

Perhaps, but only because the hecklers were too invested
in IPNG. I always look upon such events with bemusement,
because anyone who argues so unfairly is reavaling their
inner insecurities about their position.

> I am waiting to see what happens with GENI.

I'm _not_ holding my breath

-- Robert

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1147923094.748202.271780@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups .com> on 17 May 2006
20:31:34 -0700, "Le Chaud Lapin" <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> >I would love to see a new, programmable, USB-based RF transceiver.
>> >It's job would be to simply transmit and receive frames, perhaps with
>> >link-layer addresses encoded, much like Ethernet is done on the wire.
>> >I would keep the collision-avoidance technology, but beyond that, I
>> >would do nothing else.
>> >
>> >I am almost certain that if someone were to do this, the network-layer
>> >people would figure out how to use it.
>>
>> Probably no real demand; else it would exist.
>
>God forbid that a doctor would ever utter these words to a patient with
>terminal illness.

Meaningless analogy.

>There is a real demand to fix major problems with computer networking.

Of course. Which is why the market is more interested in effective pragmatic
solutions than in purist solutions that actually increase the risk of
problems.

>There is a real demand for a generalized solution to the mobility
>problem. But no solution exists. There is real demand for integrated
>security for network programming. But no solution exists. There is
>real demand for a naming system that is far better than DNS. But no
>solution exists. There is real demand for large-scale multicasting.
>There is real demand for a "socket" model that is not as horrific as
>sockets.
>
>There is real demand for many things, but no solutions exist because
>those who would provide the solutions simply are not.

I respectfully disagree. Actual products on the market are the result of the
market finding effective solutions to actual demands.

>The fact that $300 million has been ear-marked to do what IPv6 failed
>to do is testament to the demand:
>
>http://www.geni.net/index.php

That's a huge stretch.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:20:43 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Le Chaud Lapin <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> Probably no real demand; else it would exist.
>
>> God forbid that a doctor would ever utter these words to
>> a patient with terminal illness.
>
> Perhaps uncompassionate, but often still true. However, we
> do not need to be concerned with compassion about computer
> networks. So "The Truth" (whatever that might be) matters
> far more than decorum.
>
>> There is a real demand to fix major problems with computer
>> networking.
>
> No and yes: There are certain problems with computer networking.
> There is _some_ demand to fix them. But not a lot because most
> people are fairly satisfied with networking as-is.
>
> The Best is the enemy of the Good. Or in this case: The Good
> is the enemy of the Best. It reduces the drive to improve.
> "Satisficing". IBM PC architecture is horrible, x86 is
> bletcherous, according to "experts". Yet both persist.
^^^^^^^^^^^
....

Damn! If you learn something new every day, I guess I can go back to bed:

http://www.islandnet.com/~egbird/dict/b.htm

BTW, I agree, and I have had a modicum of experience with processors. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

"Le Chaud Lapin" <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

>I would love to see a new, programmable, USB-based RF transceiver.
(...)
>I am almost certain that if someone were to do this, the network-layer
>people would figure out how to use it.

These are mutually exclusive requirements. No company is going to
develop an expensive and complex chip specifically designed for an
untested application without first making sure they have absolute
control over the necessary patents and then insuring that they have a
market. It's the chicken or the egg problem. You don't get the chips
without the applications. The applications don't get written without
first having the chips. Emulators are possible, but can't be easily
sold, perform badly, and often don't adequately emulate the working
environment.

There has to be a need and paying customers to justify development
costs. Doing the same old thing slightly better is not sufficient. At
this time, my guess is a 2 times improvement in performance or cost is
what will be required. I don't see that happening with just an
improved MAC layer. For example, UWB (ultra wide band) has
substantial performance benefits over 802.11b/g, and opens a new
market in wireless video connections, which is sufficient to justify
chip development by Intel (which is traditionally 18 to 24 months
later than promised).

What I find amusing is your interest in "simplifying" the MAC layer
and possibly the other layers. The cheapest component in today's chip
designs is memory and CPU cycles. The more you do in software, the
cheaper the product. Adding features and functions are only limited
by available horsepower, memory, and power consumption. Obviously,
this would tend to create complex software with the usual bugs which
is probably what you're really complaining about. So, a fairly simple
idea, like eliminating cables, turns into a complex feature infested
pretzel, like Bluetooth. I don't have a problem with this because to
implement the same thing in a highly modular fashion is both difficult
and expensive in chip count. Moving the applications support to some
off-chip device, really raises the costs. Also, it's perfectly
acceptable to tolerate some level of complexity, inefficiency,
non-elegance, and cute tricks, to obtain sufficient versatility to
sell the chips and the technology into a wider market area.

Ask yourself why TCP/IP won over OSI 7 layer (as implemented by 3Com),
LAN Manager (Microsloth), Netware (Novell), Lantastic (Artisoft), and
a mess of smaller networking vendors (MosesNet, Ungerman Bass,
DaVinci, etc)? If elegance of design was the chief requirement, we
should all be running OSI 7 layer 3com networks. If performance was a
major issue, we should be running Netware. If ease of integration was
the main requirement, we should now be running LAN Manager. If
simplicity were a requirement, we should be running NETBEUI. If
meeting a specific application requirement (i.e. CAN), we should be
running one of the minor network vendors products. Yet, TCP/IP has
successfully met all these requirements, but admittedly in a mediocre,
non-elegant, and compromise fashion. It's not elegant, it's not fast,
it doesn't configure easily, and it's not optimized for any particular
application. In other words, if you can do everything, then
inefficiency in design is more than acceptable.

Also, you might consider that limiting applications vendors to
anything above the MAC (hardware) layer is not really going to solve
many problems. The big problem is applications coexistence. For
example, can a bluetooth headset coexist with 802.11, EV-DO, and IrDA
communications, in the same box or in the same chip? How do you
bridge between them? Will the necessary CPU cycles slow down the user
playing games on their cell phone? By standardizing the applications
interface along with the communications protocol, many of these
interactions are standardized. Removing the API's and interfaces
would simply re-create the problem they were intended to solve.

Good luck. You'll need it.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote in part:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:20:43 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>> "Satisficing". IBM PC architecture is horrible, x86 is
>> bletcherous, according to "experts". Yet both persist.
>
> BTW, I agree, and I have had a modicum of experience with processors. :-)

IMHO, a strong case can be made that IBM intended for
the original 5120 PC to be a flop. A sacrificial lamb.
They did everything against the proven IBM ways to success:
outsourced, open architecture, minimal testing/err chk.
And chose the i8088, arguably the worst CPU of the day.

But, as time has shown, they failed at failure. The PC succeeded!

-- Robert

>
>

In article <pK2bg.78202$H71.34511@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ,
redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote in part:
> > On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:20:43 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> >> "Satisficing". IBM PC architecture is horrible, x86 is
> >> bletcherous, according to "experts". Yet both persist.
> >
> > BTW, I agree, and I have had a modicum of experience with processors. :-)
>
> IMHO, a strong case can be made that IBM intended for
> the original 5120 PC to be a flop. A sacrificial lamb.
> They did everything against the proven IBM ways to success:
> outsourced, open architecture, minimal testing/err chk.
> And chose the i8088, arguably the worst CPU of the day.

The 5120 was pretty much a flop. The original PC was the 5150.
;-)

> But, as time has shown, they failed at failure. The PC succeeded!

--
Keith

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> What I find amusing is your interest in "simplifying" the MAC layer
> and possibly the other layers. The cheapest component in today's chip
> designs is memory and CPU cycles. The more you do in software, the
> cheaper the product. Adding features and functions are only limited
> by available horsepower, memory, and power consumption. Obviously,
> this would tend to create complex software with the usual bugs which
> is probably what you're really complaining about. So, a fairly simple
> idea, like eliminating cables, turns into a complex feature infested
> pretzel, like Bluetooth. I don't have a problem with this because to
> implement the same thing in a highly modular fashion is both difficult
> and expensive in chip count. Moving the applications support to some
> off-chip device, really raises the costs. Also, it's perfectly
> acceptable to tolerate some level of complexity, inefficiency,
> non-elegance, and cute tricks, to obtain sufficient versatility to
> sell the chips and the technology into a wider market area.

Actually, if Bluetooth had every feature one could imagine and there
were zero bugs in it, I still would not want it. What I am complaining
about is the mess. I hesitate to use the word "complexity", because
there are many things that are complex, but also beautiful. Bluetooth
and many of these other protocols are downright ugly, and it is this
ugliness, lack of coherence, malformation, whatever you want to call
it...that makes them not useable. It is often the case that the
"model", if there is one, is defective, and it's almost comical to see
engineers attempting to speak intelligently about a something that is
still in a state of a nothing.

> Ask yourself why TCP/IP won over OSI 7 layer (as implemented by 3Com),

OSI, was more like a mood. I have never seen one line of OSI "code".
And trust me, I searched long and hard for it. When I read about OSI,
I get the feeling it was "designed" by people who actually knew what
they were talking about, but lost the ability to program computers
(read implement their vague vision) several decades earlier.

> LAN Manager (Microsloth), Netware (Novell), Lantastic (Artisoft), and
> a mess of smaller networking vendors (MosesNet, Ungerman Bass,
> DaVinci, etc)? If elegance of design was the chief requirement, we
> should all be running OSI 7 layer 3com networks. If performance was a
> major issue, we should be running Netware. If ease of integration was
> the main requirement, we should now be running LAN Manager. If
> simplicity were a requirement, we should be running NETBEUI. If
> meeting a specific application requirement (i.e. CAN), we should be
> running one of the minor network vendors products. Yet, TCP/IP has
> successfully met all these requirements, but admittedly in a mediocre,
> non-elegant, and compromise fashion. It's not elegant, it's not fast,
> it doesn't configure easily, and it's not optimized for any particular
> application. In other words, if you can do everything, then
> inefficiency in design is more than acceptable.

But let's face it...if you were to apply the label "universal" to all
of these protocols, it would only stick on TCP/IP, and not because
everyone is using TCP/IP, but because TCP/IP is inherently more
universal than the others. I think we are saying the same thing here.

> Also, you might consider that limiting applications vendors to
> anything above the MAC (hardware) layer is not really going to solve
> many problems. The big problem is applications coexistence. For
> example, can a bluetooth headset coexist with 802.11, EV-DO, and IrDA
> communications, in the same box or in the same chip? How do you
> bridge between them? Will the necessary CPU cycles slow down the user
> playing games on their cell phone? By standardizing the applications
> interface along with the communications protocol, many of these
> interactions are standardized. Removing the API's and interfaces
> would simply re-create the problem they were intended to solve.

Apart from power-management, I believe there exists a universal model
by which one can regard these types of hardwares. TCP/IP came very
close to finding it, but stopped short (with ARP, IP address bound to
interface instead of something else, etc.)

I also agree that CPU cycles and RAM are cheap. I would prefer that
the upper layers follow the "heavy bitch" model where, whatever state
is needed to create a solid coherent framework from layers 3 on up,
that is what should be done. We should get away from attaching IP
addresses to interfaces. That model alone causes a lot of problems.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <pK2bg.78202$H71.34511@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m> on Thu, 18 May 2006
18:08:21 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote in part:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:20:43 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>> "Satisficing". IBM PC architecture is horrible, x86 is
>>> bletcherous, according to "experts". Yet both persist.
>>
>> BTW, I agree, and I have had a modicum of experience with processors. :-)
>
>IMHO, a strong case can be made that IBM intended for
>the original 5120 PC to be a flop. A sacrificial lamb.
>They did everything against the proven IBM ways to success:
>outsourced, open architecture, minimal testing/err chk.
>And chose the i8088, arguably the worst CPU of the day.
>
>But, as time has shown, they failed at failure. The PC succeeded!

That's a joke, right?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>