Subj : linked To : Peter Knapper From : Frank Vest Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 06:08 pm On (15 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest... Hello Peter, FV> Same for IP Nodes. Why fly an IP flag and not list your IP/domain? PK> As I alluded in my previous mail, thats one place where the PSTN and PK> the Internet differ. When Fidonet started using the PSTN there was no PK> common index (phone book) that could be used, so the Nodelist was born PK> to contain that detail. However the Internet does already have such an PK> index (the DNS), so why not use it? Why does Fidonet have to re-invent PK> the wheel? No reason to re-invent the wheel. The wheel (Nodelist) is fine. The wheel (DNS) is fine. The other wheels are fine too. The problem is that there are too many wheels? How the heck do we steer this thing?!? :-) PK> When Fidonet started, it NEEDED to create the Nodelist, there was no PK> common PHONE directory available to look up. With IP, such a directory PK> already exists (the DNS). If Fidonet ignores that, then you will end Fidonet still needs the Nodelist. IMHO, it always will. When Fidonet doesn't need its own Nodelist, Fidonet will not be Fidonet. FV> Without listing the IP/domain in the Nodelist, there is little way to FV> use the DNS except for a default domain like fidonet.net or something FV> like that. PK> Well for all the times I have used fidonet.net to reach an end IP PK> node, its worked fine for me. If the node is not listed, the mail is PK> Routed. There's the key. Routed. If the Node is not listed in the Nodelist or the DNS, the message is routed. If the default DNS is fidonet.net, then all Nodes that wish to be contactable would need to be listed in the fidonet.net DNS? PK> I can only see Fidonet requiring everyone to use a Nodelist entry for PK> DNS info, as a truely backward step, and as is currently done by Zones PK> 2 & 7 (yes 7!) the "rest" of Fidonet will continue doing it THEIR way PK> because Fidonet does not want to work they way THEY want to work. Now PK> is Fidonet here FOR its Sysops, or are the Sysops here FOR Fidonet? Ok. The majority rules... no matter what? PK> As a guide, a quick analysis of the fidonet.net Domain shows to me PK> that at least 150+ defined NETWORKS of IP nodes exist in the Zone 2 PK> and Zone 7 sections of fidonet.net, while a TOTAL of round 50-100 PK> NODES exist within the rest of Fidonet combined. Are we going to PK> totally ignore the way a vast majority of Fidonet IP users appear to PK> wish to work? Surely this should tell us something? How many NODES of the 9000+ in Fidonet use fidonet.net? PK> I suspect the prime reason the English speaking Zones have not been PK> aware of the growth of fidonet.net usage is simply because of the PK> language differences, we (the English speaking Zones) really are PK> ignorant of how non-English speaking Zones operate. Many Zones don't know how other Zones operate. PK> Current standards prohibit using a FLAG for that info, so I don't PK> see how one can keep that info in the Nodelist without breaking PK> SOMETHING at least. FV> Create a new standard. PK> A new standard what, Nodelist? You really DO like taking on big PK> tasks....;-) I'm gonna start telepathy again if you don't behave. :-> A new standard flag. PK> However, if you are NOT suggesting to put into the PK> Nodelist, then the MOST practical place left is the DNS, which is PK> fine with me. DNS is fine as a fallback default. I just think that there needs to be some indication in the Nodelist that the Node is IP capable. For POTs or IP, Fidonet must have a Nodelist and entries for the Nodes in the Nodelist telling where to "call" to contact that Node. Until Fidonet starts using nothing but IP addresses for access, Fidonet will need the Nodelist and entries to indicate the Nodes in Fidonet with where to "call" to transfer mail. I hope we never get to the point of not needing a Nodelist. FV> And for those that use telnet mailers? or FTP? What about future FV> protocols and mailers? Do we add flags to no end for them? PK> No, Fidonet needs to settle on an IP transmission standard fairly PK> quickly (probably based on the existing BinkP protocol), similar to How? There are too many already. binkp, ftp, telnet. Of which, telnet seems to handle the old POTS protocols. PK> the PSTN standard. We currently use several flags to help the PSTN PK> side of things (V24,V32,V42b, etc), a few similar ones for IP should The flags you mention are not protocol flags. They are connection ability flags. None of the flags you mention tell what protocols can be used by the Node. Flags for DSL, cable modem, dial-up isp and such would fit better in your above statement. Regards, Frank http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv http://biseonline.com/r19 --- PPoint 3.01 * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1) .