[e2e] Port numbers, SRV records or...?
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Wed Aug 16 20:20:52 PDT 2006
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Sometimes I think that computer networking lacks the luster of other
> areas of computer science. It has its hardcore contributors (such as
> people who participate on this list), but the vast majority of people
> gravitate towards other areas, either out of necessity (money), or
> because they find the work more
> interesting/challenging/rewarding. You'll find no end of people who
> want to do information retrieval, or data mining, because they want to
> work for Google or some other search engine. Are these the types of
> people the computer networking industry and research community need to
> create the next generation Internet? What would compel them to do so?
> I don't know either.
I don't get this. You honestly think those of us who got into
networking in the 1960's and 1970's did it for the luster and money?
There was no money in it, none of us had dreams of being rich that I
know of. Most of the folks a couple of years older than me were in
grad school because they liked playing with computers and gave them a
draft deferment on top of that. And my generation didn't get draft
deferments, but we still loved playing with computers (which we couldn't
afford to do because there were no microprocessors and no PCs). I could
go on - but networking has never been about making lots of money for its
inventors (though some were lucky to get hired into companies like
Worldcom and Cisco, almost by accident).
Besides that, most of the people I knew in networking and PCs were
primarily motivated by making people's lives better through better
communications and better man-machine-symbiosis. That was what you
heard from Licklider, Roberts, Taylor, Kahn, Cerf, Kirstein, Pouzin,
Farber, Kleinrock, ... and many, many others in the network arena, and
also for all of the AI, PC, CHI, etc folks. If you knew Jon Postel,
you know it was about mankind for him.
That motivation is still there for anyone who finds it inspiring, and
many still do.
But why *should* anyone care about a "next Internet" defined as just
another packet network architecture that does the same thing in a new
way? The grand vision of the Internet was written down by Licklider
and Taylor in 1967 or so in what became a Scientific American article
that all should read. The challenge is to create as profound a vision
(one that will guide people for 30+ years), and if you read that
article, it was not about "computer networking" it was about human
potential. That level of vision will be "the next Internet" in a
purely metaphorical sense - but it won't be about the same aspects of
people and machines, I'm sure.
The problem arises because some in academia want "computer networking"
to be a discipline, just as some want "computer science" to be a
discipline. Disciplines are for the Divinity School to study.
There's no special discipline for *computer* networking, or even for
networking. There are just systems that get designed according to
principles that are hard won and oft debated by folks who care to make
things work and to make them work better and apply them to more and more
important and meaningful things.
The idea that "data mining" could be thought to be in the same category
as creating communications systems in that grand and interdisciplinary
sense just suggests to me the poverty of thinking that pervades what
used to be a great country like America.
Don't worry, this poverty of thinking has diminished DARPA and most of
the rest of the government research establishment today. (there are
petty "crimes" in the way DARPA is run, but the biggest "crime" is that
it has substituted for conceptual vision a notion that you can get
creativity by running contests against a set of rules and
requirements). Those who "dance" listlessly to that tune also seem to
think that being quoted in Wired magazine defines their technical
worthiness, or that thoughts by blogging pundits written in an orgy of
self-absorption represent profundity.
Follow a path with a heart - one that you and others resonate with.
Stop looking to find external validation and "incentives" that will win
you praise or make you rich. Do what you can honestly say is worth the
More information about the end2end-interest