Subj : NEWS::: DogBone To : Rob Swindell From : John Dovey Date : Mon Jun 28 2021 04:02 pm Re: NEWS::: DogBone By: Rob Swindell to John Dovey on Mon Jun 28 2021 13:31:13 RS> Nice of you to say, but I really was just looking for more clarity on your RS> point (about the nodelist "model"?). QWKnet routing (introduced in I understand. The model I was talking about, was the one that was developed under the pressure of the costs of POTS. Whether that's the nodelist or Mail hour or many of the other things, it was based on the expense of long distance calls. I wrote a piece on here basically saying that I thought that the model was outdated for two main reasons: 1. That it was based on POTS thinking and 2. It ignores the changes in message exchange and consumption that have happened in the last few decades. I *know* that I was misunderstood. That those who have continued to run the various FTN networks are vested in the mechanisms that have grown to prominence. What I was suggesting was that any discussion on a Future 4 Fido should consider taking the changes into account. In no way did I suggest that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater! In fact, I prefaced my remarks with my admiration for the store-and-forward nature of the technology an it's built in resiliency. What I felt was a vunerability that had crept in was the heirarchical nature imposed in service to the nodelist, which struck me as completely counter to the nature of the anarchic design of FidoNet. I suggested that a range of more resilient routing options would be of use and would, in fact, return FidoNet more closely resemble the original vision of Tom Jennings. If you have researched him at all, you will know he was an out of work anarchist when he conceptualised the network, specifically opposed to the concepts of structure and control. Reading between the lines, in later years he was suborned by the success of his concept. My memory and reading on the origins suggested that the original design was in line with the basis on which the ARPANet/InterNet were designed, that is to survice the disruption of service caused by disasters; specifically a nuclear war. Static routing completely removes this flexibility. I know it is simple enough for two sysops to agree to share links, and set that up, but it requires agreement and planning. The QWK Network concept is closer, I think, even though it still requires some intervention. RS> QWKnet routing (introduced in RS> Synchronet probably back around 1992) was more of a useful thing back when RS> phone-modems were used to transfer mail and long-distance charges were a Acknowledged. Still works now though and without the intervention of a central authority... RS> With DOVE-Net, I just wanted a sort of auto-pilot network: pretty much any RS> BBS can join immediately (no manual "approval" or "address assignment" RS> process involved) and if/when that node drops (stops logging in), it just RS> eventually disappears from the network and its "address" is automatically RS> available for reuse. It's worked pretty well for my intentions, but I Exactly. That's my point. It's essentially self maintaining... so much so it appears as if most sysops aren't even aware of it. RS> I don't think that's what FidoNet is all about: Traditionally, FidoNet RS> is a more "controlled" network. True, that IS what FidoNet has become. The question was whether that was the best FUTURE for FidoNet or not. I am afraid I made the assumption when joining this conference that it was about "blue-sky" planning and speculation about possible futures for the network. Instead I have run into serious opposition to even having the discussion. JD === * El Gato de Fuego (The Fire Cat) 4:920/69 * Pedasi, Panama "... I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- RAH" --- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32 * Origin: El Gato de Fuego - Pedasi, Panama (4:920/69) .