An NYT article on peering, <br><br>May not be very relevant to e2e, but seemed interesting to me.<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02topo.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02topo.html</a><br>
<br>I learnt about several concepts i was unaware of... <br><br>David Alderson's HOT model [<a href="http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1115527">http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1115527</a>] &<br> some new developments like SFMIX [<a href="http://www.sfmix.org/">http://www.sfmix.org/</a>]<br>
<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, David P. Reed <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dpreed@reed.com">dpreed@reed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Jon - excellent piece.<br>
<br>
I agree that the mania around the Future Internet (especially the idea that we MUST have a Clean Slate) seems to have been a temporary reaction by a research community to a funding structure problem, or perhaps a process of Bandwagon Joining by people who saw a new bandwagon that seemed to have political traction.<br>
<br>
Bandwagons and Clean Slates are rhetorical moves that can have enormous value in shaking a clogged bureaucratic process - so there's not necessarily anything wrong with them, but they have indeed become unlikely to produce "good science" or "good engineering" or anything else, now that they are no longer shaking anything up.<br>
<br>
That said, the idea that one might be able to solve problems without Waiting for Obama or Waiting for IETF or Waiting for Copenhagen is one of the inspiring things about the Internet in comparison to the idea that one must Wait for DARPA or Wait for NSF to fund a zillion CS and EE departments.<br>
<br>
We might be able to start a small skunk works to think about decentralized solutions to managing the energy flux that impinges on the geosystem, to both avoid absorbing too much energy and disrupting the planet's inhabitants, while at the same time providing support for 10 Billion future inhabitants.<br>
<br>
That might be based on a few principles of the sort you describe, and an approach that doesn't require top-down agreement by all the stakeholders who want to control it.<br>
<br>
Hmmm....<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>