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

Mike Williams knightperson at zuzax.com
Thu Aug 5 19:06:31 EDT 2004


>
>
>From: Rusty Yonkers <therustycook at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [KLUG Advocacy] re: TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic
>	management
>To: Pros and cons of different software <advocacy at kalamazoolinux.org>
>Message-ID: <20040804220341.42679.qmail at web21203.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>  
>
>>> 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
>>    
>>
>
>The libertarian part of me sees huge civil liberty and privacy issues
>with this.  Now the government and whoever gets access to the
>databases would know exactly where everyone travels and who they
>visit!  Hmmmm, talk about big brother!
>
>  
>
Well, depends entirely on how much data is associated with the moving 
cars.  Granted if "Reverend Ashcroft" had a hand in the development of 
this, there would probably be all sorts of information that shouldn't be 
there.  However, most of the personally-identifiable stuff doesn't need 
to be transmitted;  you just need things like # of people in the car, 
weight of the car, where it has to stop, how fast it's going, etc etc.

>From: Adam Tauno Williams <adam at morrison-ind.com>
>> >Subject: [KLUG Advocacy] "TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic
>> > management"
>
>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!
>
Yes, THAT's why thinking of the cars as TCP/IP packets isn't going to 
work.  Heiarchical addressing like TCP/IP is good.  Fragmenting the 
"packets" and reassembling them coherently at the far end only works 
when Scotty's running the Transporter.




More information about the Advocacy mailing list