[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

[joseph alhadeff]

"Designed" is perhaps a too deliberate term to describe what evolved.  
IPV4-6 transition has demonstrated a sliver of complexity of revision in 
operation.  Could we find  way to incrementally evolve the Internet 
architecture in the right the direction so that we do so with greater 
stability and continuity? A new architecture could be the destination; 
I'm worried about the speed bumps and spin outs along the way...

Joe
On 4/15/2014 8:33 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> The internet architecture was designed 40 years ago.
> It was an experimental system. It still is.
> Temple guardians die hard.
> We need a new architecture, at last.
>  .
> Louis.
> - - -
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:29 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+1net at elandsys.com 
> <mailto:sm+1net at elandsys.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Carlos,
>
>     At 14:47 15-04-2014, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>         A bit more than six years passed, and what we see? Relevant
>         and frightening examples of the frailty of the current
>         "governance" or coordination model of the network -- mostly in
>         the expert hands basically of the I* group of entities and
>         forums, which goes beyond just names, numbers and protocols,
>         and badly in need of fixing (and I assume that the fix in
>         general will involve more than just technical coordination
>         measures):
>
>         - The net was revealed as incredibly vulnerable by the
>         revelations on NSA surveillance, and we discovered that the
>         NIST was at cahoots with the NSA in "backdooring" the
>         cryptographic systems.
>
>
>     Noted.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140416/eeba78e7/attachment.html>