Re: Opinion piece in NYT; responses needed
On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 19:33:19 -0500, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
The New York Times, January 2, 1996, Business, p. 14
Viewpoint: J. Walker Smith
Standoff in Cyberspace Gulch
[..] [I'm going to try to make myself write a letter to the NYT in response to that viewpoint, making some of these points I'm saying it's important to make, but you should too. :) ]
Don't leave out an important point ignored by both sides of the debate all too often (esp. by the "decency" folk): the structure of the 'net itself (well, sort of). It's a decentered network (or set of networks) designed to get information to its addressee. Data flows through several nodes and networks until it reaches its destination. If it can't get through one path, it goes through the other. This isn't just for mail but all "packets" that flow on the net: web pages, file transfers, telnetting, etc. [A good segue to arguing "security related to privacy can go here...] Limiting content or access is only superficially impossible. The international scope of the 'net makes even agreeing to standards impossible.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Mutatis" == Mutatis Mutantdis <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com> writes:
Mutatis> It's a decentered network (or set of networks) designed Mutatis> to get information to its addressee. Data flows through Mutatis> several nodes and networks until it reaches its Mutatis> destination. If it can't get through one path, it goes Mutatis> through the other. This is unfortunately a wide-spread myth. While it's true for mail and news, it's not for IP packets. Witness: 5:41 bogk@habari% traceroute www.webcom.com ~ traceroute to s1000e.webcom.com (206.2.192.66), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 jambo-110 (160.45.110.1) 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 heiss.router.fu-berlin.de (160.45.1.1) 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 3 Duesseldorf7.WiN-IP.DFN.DE (188.1.133.65) 38 ms 45 ms 69 ms 4 ipgate2.win-ip.dfn.de (193.174.74.200) 69 ms 56 ms 71 ms 5 * ipgate2.win-ip.dfn.de (193.174.74.200) 41 ms !H * 6 ipgate2.win-ip.dfn.de (193.174.74.200) 44 ms !H * 39 ms !H BTW: Deutsche Telekom (actually DeTeBerkom, a 100% daughter) is one of DFN's major players. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAgUBMQ2oTEyjTSyISdw9AQGulgP/SCP80zzeSbLnkYjsb3td8g7CvOsC5HUM 85gWT60xZZER8dZr5VOYD/To3ofeZWII0RAELDPCT48Efw06VxkWCUPeVF35yjjB 2GfRIcKBKaqrag2TH4nT91kf0pCqlrRFf7l6x9x0la7qdks40pH/CEWfBzNsYkTQ 9uq9K1gjX1E= =u9d4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 30 Jan 1996, Andreas Bogk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Mutatis" == Mutatis Mutantdis <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com> writes:
Mutatis> It's a decentered network (or set of networks) designed Mutatis> to get information to its addressee. Data flows through Mutatis> several nodes and networks until it reaches its Mutatis> destination. If it can't get through one path, it goes Mutatis> through the other.
This is unfortunately a wide-spread myth. While it's true for mail and news, it's not for IP packets. Witness:
No, it is the truth. The fact is that DT has gone and intentionally broken *all* routes to webcom.com -- the SJ Merc said 129,000. But the point is moot. Try: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/zundel/pr.004.... http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/declan/www/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/... Is DT going to block every machine in stanford.edu, cmu.edu, mit.edu, uiuc.edu, harvard.edu, berkeley.edu, and so on? Or from any machine with access to AFS, which includes thousands of academic and a few corporate machines in Germany, the following file system paths will work. With a simple symbolic link, any machine with AFS can become a mirror site. /afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/declan/www/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/pr.004.compuser.html /afs/ir.stanford.edu/users/l/llurch/WWW/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/pr.004.compuser.html Is DT going to block TCP port 80 and UDP ports 7000-7029 from every machine in the world? -rich
participants (3)
-
andreas＠horten.artcom.de -
Rich Graves -
wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com