• linked [1]

    From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Peter Knapper on Mon Dec 16 12:50:03 2002
    On (16 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Peter,

    I'm going to answer this part since I don't think we are far apart on
    the other stuff. Besides... I'm tired of running with it right now.
    :-)

    As a small diversion here, if you can see a bit into the future, say
    when nothing but IP is used for transport within Fidonet, do you think
    you can see where things might end up? My own thoughts in this area
    are... interesting... to say the least. I am not sure a lot of people
    have given it much thought though (some of them might have a heart attack.......;-)).

    I always try to look towards the future. I can visualize a day when
    the only thing PSTN (note the change from POTS) will be Nodes that run
    a BBS only... no mailer on PSTN.

    I believe that there is a day coming when Fidonet will be only
    available via NNTP or "Web BBS" type systems. The old z:n/n.p
    addressing will be gone. We already have NNTP for Fidonet. Of course,
    there will still be the need for a "nodelist" of some sort. :)

    Of course, this is in the future... how far?... I don't know. Maybe
    it's closer than we think.

    For now and the not so distant future, we still have PSTN Nodes and
    need a way to keep them in the loop.

    This thread started over discussion of a new Nodelist format. My
    comment was to the effect that the current Nodelist is fine. I've yet
    to see anyone prove that there is a problem with the current Nodelist
    format... I mean the Nodelist format, not the programs and such that
    use it.


    Later,

    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Peter Knapper@3:772/1.10 to Frank Vest on Tue Dec 17 16:15:56 2002
    Hi Frank,

    I'm going to answer this part since I don't think we are far apart on
    the other stuff. Besides... I'm tired of running with it right now.
    :-)

    Yes, we sure have dragged this beast through a mud-hole or two......;-)

    Of course, this is in the future... how far?... I don't know. Maybe
    it's closer than we think.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I was actually thinking a bit further ahead than that, and perhaps not in quite so much detail, but its still interesting to see HOW different people end up where they do, with a question like that.........;-)

    Cheers...................pk.


    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
  • From Gordon Lewicky@1:153/307 to Frank Vest on Mon Dec 16 23:09:42 2002
    Quoting Frank Vest to Peter Knapper
    Subj. linked

    Hi ya Frank,

    Oh-oh... more rambling thoughts! ;)

    As a small diversion here, if you can see a bit into the future, say
    when nothing but IP is used for transport within Fidonet, do you think

    I always try to look towards the future. I can visualize a day when
    the only thing PSTN (note the change from POTS) will be Nodes that run
    a BBS only... no mailer on PSTN.

    I dunno about this not needing PSTN for transport. Maybe in 100
    years.

    Yes, we are switching over to more and more inet bbs's and
    transport within our network. Hell, I'll be adding a telnet node
    soon. But I can't really envision my bbs going inet only within at
    least the next 10 years or more, and more then likely, as long as
    I have a bbs, it will be dial-up as well. :)

    Thing is, I believe we'll keep PSTN transport for quite awhile,
    even if only for a backup in the more advanced countries, and it
    will surely have a longer lifetime in those countries which don't
    advance to domestic inet capabilities as fast as others.

    Then there is always the real threat of a massive inet disruption,
    so the PSTN transport should always be there as the backup, since
    I just can't see us sitting and twiddling our thumbs if we do
    experience a major inet problem. You can bet yer bippy, we'll be
    scrambling to re-establish PSTN links just to keep the mail
    flowing during the black-out. We'll all moan and groan, and curse
    the stars above, but we'll keep that mail flowing just the same.
    That's just our collective nature. Could you imagine a month or a
    couple of weeks with no mail? I think you'll find about 5000
    people doing whatever it takes to keep from going into echo
    withdrawal shock. :)

    Cheers...
    Gordon Lewicky (Pdk)

    Sysop - Milky Way 1:153/307 NC 153
    AdventureNet 33:500/150
    email glewicky@telus.net

    --- EzyBlueWave/2 V2.00 00F90260
    * Origin: Milky Way, Langley, BC [604] 532-4367 (1:153/307)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Gordon Lewicky on Tue Dec 17 09:38:09 2002
    On (16 Dec 02) Gordon Lewicky wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Gordon,

    Oh-oh... more rambling thoughts! ;)

    :-)

    I always try to look towards the future. I can visualize a day when
    the only thing PSTN (note the change from POTS) will be Nodes that run
    a BBS only... no mailer on PSTN.
    I dunno about this not needing PSTN for transport. Maybe in 100
    years.

    Maybe. I can only speak of my limited knowledge of Zone 1. It seems
    like, for the most part, the only Fidonet mail that is transferred via
    modem (POTS) is within Nets. Even there, that is changing. With the
    phone system changing around in my area, many Nodes would probably be
    long distance to other Nodes and not able to get Fidonet mail without
    the IP transfers.

    As a weird example that dates back to my first becoming a Node in
    Fidonet's Net124;

    McKinney, Texas is about 30 miles from Dallas. Dallas is the "center"
    of Net124. When I moved to McKinney, the phone service offered a
    "local" number that was good for Mckinney and "surrounding" towns.
    Dallas wasn't one of the surrounding towns. In fact, there were only a
    handful of the over 100 Nodes in Net124 that I could call locally. I
    was fortunate that my Hub had a "metro" number (that cost him extra)
    and could reach Dallas without a LD charge. When my Hub left Fidonet,
    I took the Hub position and got a "metro" line to be able to do
    that... besides, I wanted to be able to have callers from more than
    just McKinney. Even with the "metro" line, there are some places in
    the Net124 area that I can't reach via POTS without LD charges. Had I
    had the IP stuff, I could have used the Internet to do the mail. The
    Internet was available, but I didn't have it.

    As time moved forward, the phone company has now added more area codes
    and stuff to the area. My little town has at least two area codes. I
    have no idea anymore of which phone numbers are LD and which are
    local. If I had to do all the mail via dial-up, I really don't know
    how I would get the translation table right for my mailer. My next
    door neighbor could have a different area code than me, but be a local
    call. Another person could have the same area code and be LD. :/

    Anyway, as we move forward, I see it fast coming that Fidonet mail
    will be totally IP transferred. There might be a few PSTN transfers,
    but that will be rare and only within Nets or as a "fall back" for
    emergency. I have a POTS link with my Hub, but most of the mail goes
    IP. I think this is becoming more the norm than the exception.

    Yes, we are switching over to more and more inet bbs's and
    transport within our network. Hell, I'll be adding a telnet node
    soon. But I can't really envision my bbs going inet only within at
    least the next 10 years or more, and more then likely, as long as
    I have a bbs, it will be dial-up as well. :)

    Same here, but a BBS is a little different than Fidonet mail. :-) I
    have a long and drawn out vision of BBSs as well... I'll spare you the
    stuff for now. :-)

    Thing is, I believe we'll keep PSTN transport for quite awhile,
    even if only for a backup in the more advanced countries, and it
    will surely have a longer lifetime in those countries which don't
    advance to domestic inet capabilities as fast as others.

    Agreed. Although the other countries are catching up fast. Some might
    even be ahead of Z1. ;-)

    Then there is always the real threat of a massive inet disruption,
    so the PSTN transport should always be there as the backup, since
    I just can't see us sitting and twiddling our thumbs if we do

    That's just our collective nature. Could you imagine a month or a
    couple of weeks with no mail? I think you'll find about 5000
    people doing whatever it takes to keep from going into echo
    withdrawal shock. :)

    <chuckle> "No mail!" "There's been no mail for two days!!" "GOD!"
    "PLEASE!!" "I gotta have my mail!!!" <gasp, wheeze> :-)


    And you thought you rambled! :)

    Regards,

    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    ... BBS's are for the best, Inet is for the rest.

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Jasen Betts@3:640/1042 to Frank Vest on Wed Dec 18 21:58:48 2002
    Hi Frank.

    16-Dec-02 12:50:03, Frank Vest wrote to Peter Knapper

    I always try to look towards the future. I can visualize a day
    when the only thing PSTN (note the change from POTS)

    noted. other than PSTN including ISDN what's the diffreence ?

    Do you include 3G mobile phones in "PSTN"

    will be Nodes that run a BBS only... no mailer on PSTN.

    This thread started over discussion of a new Nodelist format. My
    comment was to the effect that the current Nodelist is fine. I've
    yet to see anyone prove that there is a problem with the current
    Nodelist format... I mean the Nodelist format, not the programs
    and such that use it.

    the propblem is wither it doesn't support the software or there's software
    that doesn't support it.

    The same bits that need to be changes also need to stay the same.

    two SLF different nodelists might spolve the problem

    Bye <=-

    ---
    * Origin: I'm pink, therefore I'm SPAM. (3:640/1042)
  • From Jan Vermeulen@2:280/100 to Gordon Lewicky on Fri Dec 20 02:57:02 2002
    Quoting Gordon Lewicky on Mon 16 Dec 2002 23:09 to Frank Vest:

    Thing is, I believe we'll keep PSTN transport for quite awhile,
    even if only for a backup in the more advanced countries, and it
    will surely have a longer lifetime in those countries which don't
    advance to domestic inet capabilities as fast as others.

    Rural areas come to mind...

    -=<[ JV ]>=-


    * Origin: The Poor Man's Workstation -- Wormerveer NL (2:280/100)