<p>Take the MANET example, sure. Many use cases exist since ARPA Packet radio days. Battlefield networks, disaster recovery networks, vehicular networks...some actually in use ad deployed.</p>
<p>The internet isn't for just one <a href="http://thing.it">thing.it</a> is, by definition, for anything we can imagine and realize...it is the union of all communications, not the intersection of one notion with one technology.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Sep 2012 17:48, "Pars Mutaf" <<a href="mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jon Crowcroft <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
this is what we used to talk about as the<br>
"my problem is too hard even for you" poser syndrome<br>
<br>
basically, whenever you offer a workable solution,<br>
the poser (of the problem) changes the<br>
problem (or the assumptions)<br></blockquote><div><br>No I didn't change the problem:<br><br>What do we want for the Internet? Did we really ask this question?<br><br>Take MANET for example, they did not ask themselves what it is used for. They cannot explain. <br>
<br>I would start a new thread "What do we want for the Internet" but I am not sure if I should do this. <br><br>Cheers, <br>Pars<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
one of the nice things about IP (and the E2E argument(s))<br>
is that it is really hard to change the problem it solves<br>
in a way it still doesn't solve, whichever version you choose<br>
(well, ok, maybe not IPv5:)<br>
<br>
In missive <<a href="mailto:50589DCC.2030808@dcrocker.net" target="_blank">50589DCC.2030808@dcrocker.net</a>>, Dave Crocker typed:<br>
<div><div><br>
>><br>
>>On 9/18/2012 3:35 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:<br>
>>> In missive <<a href="mailto:CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO%2BV2XV1tFcP5PgT%2BVq2A@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CACQuiebE-sXDZD-xxaeC2iWfM58iDwO+V2XV1tFcP5PgT+Vq2A@mail.gmail.com</a>>, Par<br>
>>> s Mutaf typed:<br>
>>><br>
>>> >>> I encourage you to read the relevant prior work (many pointers were given)<br>
>>> >>Only 1 pointer was given (by Jon Crowcroft), it is not relevant.<br>
>>><br>
>>> it is exactly relevant.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>in the broader sense of whether this thread has been, or has any hope of<br>
>>being, constructive, it was not relevant...<br>
>><br>
>>d/<br>
>><br>
>>--<br>
>> Dave Crocker<br>
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking<br>
>> <a href="http://bbiw.net" target="_blank">bbiw.net</a><br>
<br>
</div></div> cheers<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
jon<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.content-based-science.org" target="_blank">http://www.content-based-science.org</a><br><br>
</blockquote></div>