Text 10540, 151 rader
Skriven 2010-09-19 13:51:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Ärende: PVT Nodes
=================
Hello Richard,

On Friday September 10 2010 13:08, you wrote to me:


 MvdV>> Fidonet was designed as a peer to peer network. The idea was
 MvdV>> that every node can connect to any other node. The original Fido
[..]
 MvdV>> systems, ZMH (originally called NMH) was introduced. During ZMH
 MvdV>> all node must switch to mailer mode so that they can receive
 MvdV>> mail from others.

 RW> THis is true.

So we agree that Fidoenet was designed as a peer to peer network and that the
original idea was that every node should be able to connect to every other
node...

 RW> But, and if I'm remembering right I've seen this circular argument
 RW> before, but ...

I see no circularity and the argument, but yes.. it has come up before.

 RW> HOw does a node that only communicates via pots communicate
 RW> directly with a telnet only node?  How about a node that can
 RW> communicate only via email tunneling and a binkd node?

That is not possible of course.

Of course some will argue that we never had universal connectivity or at best
during a very short time. Even in the very beginning there was the CCITT vs
BELL issue. That disappeared with V24b, but even then there were modems that
just would not talk to each other.

All true. But it is a long way from striving for universal connectivity and not
reaching a 100% to knowingly and willingly throwing it overboard by reducing
the requirement of being ablke to receive mail during ZMH by adding "from his
NC".

 RW> I always said even back in the halcyon days of this network
 RW> that it was reliable routing as well as the p2p component of Fido that
 RW> would keep it viable.

Of course. Reliable routing is ALSO important for the viability of the network.

OTOH it should be clear that the network can not function on routing alone or
at least will become very vulnerable for single point of failure. If a
substantial amount of nodes can only be reached via routed mail, a large
portion of the network can become unreacheble by the failure of one or a few
nodes doing the routing. A node that can not be reached directly, is
unreacheable if his uplink goes down.

Plus of course, sometimes one wants some privacy. In the past I have often used
crasmail for the sole reason that I did not want my mail to be read by others.
Some others in particular.

 RW> We have evolved quite a bit since the days of the founding
 RW> fathers of Fido.  A good number of connection schemes, all
 RW> incompatible with each other.

Which is a mixed blessing and partly unneeded.

To let go of universal connectivity, or at least compromise a bit will be
unavoidable in the not too distant future becuase the telcos are outphasing
analog telephony in favour of tne Next Generation Network (NGN). NGN will no
longer reliably support our classic modem signals. It is already happening here
in Western Europe. POTS is on the way out.

Be that as it may be, I think we let go of universal connectivity too soon and
too easy. Many point to Z2 for allowing ISDN only nodes that set the precedent.
To tyat I can say two things. First, it was never meant to be a precedent. Our
society is not "precedent driven". When some exeption is made for some to
perform an experiment, it des not mean that everyone  can claim a right to the
same exception. Also when something ios permitted as an experiment, it does
npot mean that the permission can be extended forever. That is not how things
work in our society. It is not "precedent driven".

Second: seeing what the consequence was, in retrospect i think allowing ISDN
only nodes was a mistake. There never was a hard technical reason for it. ISDN
was designed to transport both voice and data and so it is no technical problem
to add analog modem capabilities to an ISDN node. And the rare exception were
this was a real problem should have remained the rare and temporary exception.
Temporary in the sense that the exception ended when the technical need
disappeared.

And now... we have saddled ourselves with not one arternative connection method
for POTS, we have half a dozen mutually incompatible connection methods that
make use of the InterNet. It is a pity we could never agree on a common
connection method for fido overt the internet. As I see it, have multiple
incompatible ways to connect is DETRIMENTAL to connectivity.

 MvdV>> Considering all that, it is pretty obvious that your
 MvdV>> interpretation that the requirement to be able to receive mail
 MvdV>> during ZMH is restricted to the ability to receive mail from
 MvdV>> one's NC, is not what the founding fathers had in mind. I am
 MvdV>> pretty sure it is not what the authors of P1 to P4 had in mind
 MvdV>> either. Plus that it is not what P1-P4 says. The restriction is
 MvdV>> your invention.

 RW> True enough,

So be it noted.

 RW> but, p1-p4 have not evolved with the evolution of FIdonet.

Regarding coinnection methods, it is not P4 that has to evolve. P4 states one
must be able to recive and send mail via FTS-0001 but allows for having the
minimum required protocol changed through the FTSC. Unfortunately their are
other hurdles on that road... :-(

 RW> Hence no universal conventions re echomail, etc.  The best we could
 RW> ever come up with when the subject has come up is to agree to
 RW> disagree,

Many thing just work better if one can agree on a few things. How would the
roads look like if we could not agree which side to drive on and we settled for
agreeing to disagree?

 RW> therefore the status quo remains.  NOrmally if it ain't broke applies,
 RW> but on the fly interpretations that have kept up with the times have
 RW> existed at zone region and net levels depending on who's interpreting
 RW> and the needs of the area administered.

That nicely sums it up...

 RW> I've maintained for years that this "agree to disagree" did
 RW> as much as anything to bring about the rapid decline of
 RW> Fido, at just the time when internet access was becoming
 RW> more widely available and these various connection schemes
 RW> were just coming into wide acceptance.   All one need to do
 RW> to see the basis for my position there is review back issues of
 RW> FIdonews.

Possibly. "Agree to disagree" certainly did not help and still does not help in
keeping FidoNet together. OTOH, I do not think FidoNet could have been "saved"
by better coordination and agreeing on standards. FidoNet served a purpose of
affordable access to a world wide network for lots of individuals. And then
something better came up. Better for most anyway.

 RW> FUny thing, but I'm fighting much the same battle with another
 RW> communications service right now, also operated as a volunteer
 RW> effort.

I have been a ham sinds 1964. Was the caretaker of the local 2m repeater for
almost two decades. Now I let the younger generation take care of those things.


Cheers, Michiel  (PA0MMV)

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)