Hi Marcus,
The idea you mentioned is *theoretically* very good ... but communism
the idea of communism was good, too ...
Quoting Marcus J. Ranum (mjr @
nfr .
net):
>
> What we need is protocol reform. Which means we need a dictatorship.
>
> deal from the first version. With the amount of money we are spending
> on kludges like firewalls, NAT, CIDR, etc, we could have probably built
> the software backbone APIs by now, and had replacement applications
> running atop them.
You are right.
> I used to think that the way to solve this was to crown someone
> "King of the Internet" and let them be the final arbiter of truth
> and good packets. The security experts who are calling for "mature
> management of the Internet" or "maturing the networking process"
> are basically calling for the "King of the Internet" -- except it'll
> be a committee instead, which will be worse. We've already seen that
> committees have a half-life of usefulness beyond which they ossify.
> What we really need is a benevolent despot. That won't happen. The
> only way it'll happen is if someone with a lot of money decides to
> build Internet-2 and then it can be a wholly owned dictatorship.
who ? Billy ? You're sure you want that ?
You will never get a 'king of the Internet' who is an expert and has
the right money and decides correctly and has the support of the
professionals and the students and will not charge an immense amount
of money for using his new internet.
Apart from that, history has shown that dictatorship normally turns
into something bad at about the time of the second heir even if the
first king was very good and democratism is still the best known form of
reign taking into account that humans are not flawless.
Cheers,
Mel
--
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction...
References:
|
|
