> From: Gordon Cook <cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com>
> two opposed ways of thinking about and acting to achieve network
> organization. One may be described as the Bellhead intelligent network
> and the other as the Nethead stupid network ...
> bellheads see these devices (NAT boxes) as obstacles to the imposition
> of a centrally controlled communication path .. The [n]etheads don't see
> any of the bellhead's reasons for concern. They are happy to use
> multiple protocols and bridges over otherwise non interoperable network
> links. The nethead's outlook focuses on extensibility while the
> bellheads .. focus on control.
> ICANN which has garnered most of its support from bellheaded legacy
> organizations, has waged a generally successful campaign to sell itself
> to the press.
Gordon, while there is some truth to your generalizations about two different
schools of network design, I have a couple of problems with this material.
First and foremost, the terminology for your two groups is loaded and
simplistic. I've worked with a number of 'classic voice' people who were very
intelligent and open-minded, and from who I learned a great deal. On the other
hand, I've known more than a few datagram people who were not very incisive
thinkers. Me, I've always liked the old quote (from "Poor Richard's Almanac",
IIRC, but I'm not positive):
"There are two kinds of fool: one says 'this is old, and therefore
good'; and the other says 'this is new, and therefore better'."
This quotation also points out that simplistic analyses are often faulty,
which leads me into my second point... A number of the areas you touch on
above are a lot more complex than your analysis paints them. For one, the
administration of the DNS is a massive problem, and many (most?) of the
parties opposing various aspects of the current arrangement aren't exactly
pure of heart. For another, a lot of the new grass-roots technologies you laud
(e.g. NAT) have major dark sides (which is not to say that some of the
alternatives are superior...)
Finally, these comments should not be taken as an overall condemnation of
this column, which contains much useful material.
Noel