Subj : NEWS::: DogBone
To   : John Dovey
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Mon Jun 28 2021 06:31 pm

  Re: NEWS::: DogBone
  By: John Dovey to Rob Swindell on 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
 >  RS> your 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.

Those seeem like quote differnet things and not really what I would call "the 
model". Perhaps being just more specific in your claims about what's broken 
will prevent future requests for clarity.

 > 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 the model was outdated for two main reasons: 1.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
 >  RS> when phone-modems were used to transfer mail and long-distance charges
 >  RS> 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
 >  RS> any BBS can join immediately (no manual "approval" or "address
 >  RS> assignment" process involved) and if/when that node drops (stops
 >  RS> logging in), it just eventually disappears from the network and its
 >  RS> "address" is automatically available for reuse. It's worked pretty well
 >  RS> 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.

I'm not opposed to discussing whatever. I just found the claim about "the 
model" being broken too vague to have merit. Thanks for the clarification.
-- 
                                            digital man

Rush quote #23:
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Norco, CA WX: 78.8øF, 62.0% humidity, 4 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

.