Some random thoughts about the "tunnel-vision Net" (TVN)... A) TVN already exists on the present IPv4 system. There are two reasons why AOL and other intranet systems do not rule the day: 1) customers want unfettered access to all public data 2) producers (i.e., anyone with public info) want their data accessible to customers without barriers I argue that so long as there is sufficient market demand for unfettered access to public data, that access will continue. There are a lot of Not Evil[tm] technical ways to limit customers' bandwidth usage as well as billing leverage... anyway, back to the topic: I think the only time the Net had any chance of being locked into an evil TVN was back in 1994/1995. Fortunately for all of us, Bill Gates didn't "get it" back then so we're not saddled with MSN == Net! B) VPN has some good uses. Telecommuting, hooking up corporate and personal intranets together, etc. for sharing private data. Rather than using the present masquerading and/or VPN hacks, it's nice to see some protocol support for this set-up. I suppose it's possible IPv6 VPN traffic may be billed differently than public traffic, though. C) Route-based billing is probably more expensive to pass onto customers en masse than billing at a flat-rate and gambling on the usage averages. D) I think that so long as we work to prevent monopoly control over the Net, the public space will be preserved. Every little bit helps: 1) foster competition: actively look for the best deal, best Terms of Service, etc. for your ISP. Don't just go with the local cable/phone monopoly because it's "easier" (whatever that means)... find one that restricts your freedom the least, one that gives you greatest return on your peso, dollar, euro, etc. 2) Marketers/Producers: Don't make IE- or Microsoft-only content. You're buying into the Microsoft "embrace-and-extend" strategy. It may look cheaper in the short term to develop for one browser and one interface, but you'll be paying for it in the long term in higher license fees for all your development and platform software. Worse, imagine the Net developing into Microsoft TVN. Goodbye unfettered access to public data. 3) Work with (or at least vote for representatives in) Internet stakeholder groups, such as our young ICANNATLARGE.ORG, to ensure monopoly control is not extended over the Internet through faux standards processes, in behind-the-scenes deals in smoky rooms between politicians and monopolists. If I completely misunderstood you, let me know, James! -s On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 22:31, Jkhan wrote: > I'd like to express in a layman's perspective, the 'Technologically > Engineered' segregating differences between IPv6 and IPv[X]* (*be that > IPv4, etc... ) and the implications of Icann's > authorization/adaptation/implementation of IPv6. <snip>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part