[KLUG Advocacy] re: TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic management

[Jeremy Leonard]

> >
> >
> >Date: Wed,  4 Aug 2004 07:09:33 -0400
> >From: Adam Tauno Williams <adam at morrison-ind.com>
> >Subject: [KLUG Advocacy] "TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic
> > management"
> >
> >Check out this link for a scary analogy - TCP/IP for traffic (as in
vehicles)
> >control.
> >
> >http://www.interstatetraveler.us/
> >
> >Came across this while looking up information about a wierd little
newspaper
> >article...
>
>http://www.mlive.com/news/advancenewspapers/northfield/index.ssf?/base/news
-0/1090435836100550.xml
> >http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=2109094&ClientType=Printable
> >.. where these people might actually try to build something in Michigan
(Ha!
> >Good luck; apparently they've never spend much time in Michigan).
> >
>
> I don't know that it's that scary an analogy.  I saw the same article (I
> think), and they were mostly talking about TCP/IP addresses as a
> heirarchical namespace.  I can also come up with scary scenarios if
> whatever system you use to route information has anything wrong with it
> (snipped wire means you can't slow down the car that's coming in at 300
> mph and such), but IP addresses would work as well as anything for
> identifying stations and such.  Of course X.500 would be even more
> flexible, but it's gonna take more bandwidth to transmit those unwieldy
> "/ou=something,/ou=somethingelse..." headers.

Ok, so the rail would be like the media, let's say CAT5.
The source and destination would be like nodes on the media.
The transport would be like a packet.
.
.
.

I'd hate to think about packed fragmentation!


>
> It looked like neat ideas, but I doubt he can pull it off.  Especially
> since the company promoting this has supposedly been around for 6 years
> or so, and the web site has cheap hand-drawn sketches and spelling
> errors all over it!
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy mailing list
> Advocacy at kalamazoolinux.org
> 
>
>