Text 44807, 60 rader
Skriven 2006-12-25 02:49:24 av FidoNews Robot (2:2/2.0)
Ärende: FidoNews 23:52 [02/07]: General Articles
================================================
=================================================================
                        GENERAL ARTICLES
=================================================================

                     The IP problem
                 By Matt Bedynek, 1:106/1

The cries of modem negotiations echoing through the hallway has now
been replaced by the silence of the TCP/IP three way handshake.
And, still, fidonet coordination has failed to update policy.  What
disturbs me the most is that none seem concerned with this.  It
seems that when people cannot agree on how to best implement the
IP standard that the discussion falls to the wayside and we remain
stranded on the derserted island known as P4.  What does it take to
find a solution and compromise?   Why must we give in so easily?

I am a regional coordinator, therefore, my hands somewhat limited.
I implement IP connectivity in my region to the best of my ability,
that which serves the interests of my region to promote growth and
reduce attrition.  Unfortunately, these are using standards which
are somewhat unoffical as far as the whole of fidonet is concerned
and that are loosly agreed upon.  But, anything less would hinder
the prosperity of the region.  There are others in other parts of
the world that do not agree with how things are done here, and I can
understand how they feel.  But, I believe that we all share the
blame, in part.  Those who bend practice and those who do nothing to
establish a new one.

My position is this:  1) We have to allow any node to be listed as
POTS or ION or both.  But we also have a duty to protect those who
might incur costs by misdial.  We can also agree that with the wide
array of fido technology for IP that ION is a viable and integral
part of fidonet.  -unpublished- without 'Pvt' has undergone a lot
of testing.  We cannot test all software but the network has reached
a critical point such that some things might have to be broken to
move foward.  -unpublished- can even be used on coordinator entries
and provides a nice compromise.  2)  We need to agree on a single
method for POTS and IP.  POTS has FTS-1 but this is outdated and
needs to be updated.  All modern mailers support newer standards
(EMSI).  For IP, BinkP is the most popular and should be the
standard.  Those who run telnet gripe when we say BinkP should be the
IP minimum standard but those people ironically also run BinkP
anyway.  Nothing says you can't fly flags indicating telnet support
or that you can no longer run it.  3) All nodes should have a minimum
of one or the other.  Nodes that cannot be reached directly at all,
why are they not listed as points?

Even as more of us turn to IP because of cost, availability of
broadband, and outright simplicity, the most that has happened within
the upper levels of fidonet has been arguements over the IC position
and a few other trivial matters.  Therefore, I put the question to
you: what can we do to find a solution?  And, would you be satisfied
with methods you dont necessarily agree upon up front just so we can
pass the first hurdle?  And, lastly, why must people make concerted
efforts to kill the discussion altogether when they cannot get their
way entirely?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
 * Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)