Amen.
Carl you're doing a fine job - keep trying please.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:32 PM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: jkm@underscore.com; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> notification methods
Peter-
Sure, I agree it would be useful; I just don't think it'll work. Suppose
your mother buys a $100 home networking kit, adds another PC, and enables
Windows Connection Sharing so that both can access the Internet. Will she
be able to configure WCS so that one of the machines (can't do more than
one) can receive INDP notifications? Will she inadvertantly open a gaping
security hole in the attempt?
Suppose she takes her laptop on the road to one of these modern hotels that
provide an ethernet jack in every room. Pretty good chance that the hotel
will be running IP Masquerading (or similar) so that 400 rooms can share
one Internet connection. INDP won't be able to penetrate that network.
Today's Internet infrastructure just isn't friendly to running a server at
the user end. Basically INDP is a peer-to-peer technology. Which might be
the next big thing, but it's not here yet:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2598097,00.html
-Carl
"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com> on 08/14/2000 05:42:23 AM
To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Zehler, Peter"
<Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>
cc: jkm@underscore.com, ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> notification methods
Carl,
I do not claim that INDP will work with every network configuration. That
is why I want to see a "registration" event sent as soon as an INDP
registration is made. I do claim that a machine readable notification is
useful, as is a human readable form. I claim that a "real time"
notification mechanism is useful, as is a store-and-forward notification
mechanism. I also claim there are network configurations in the home, on
the road and in the office that allow INDP.
There are configurations where mailto notification will not work. My
mother
can use IPP to print to my home printer. From her point of view she just
presses the print button. She does not have an email account. For her,
mailto would not be an option.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8792
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 139-05A
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: kugler@us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:57 PM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: jkm@underscore.com; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> notification methods
Peter-
I once tried to run a server on an ATT Worldnet dial-up account. It just
didn't work. Their T&Cs say
Additional Rules of Member Conduct
1. not use your AT&T WorldNet Service dial-up connection to host a
dedicated Internet server site.
It's easy enough for them to prevent you from running a server, simply by
blocking incoming connections. Whether or not they were actually blocking
me, or something else was wrong, I don't know. Anyway, there are likely to
be other problems. For example, (from the DSL Reports knowledge base,
http://www.dsl-reports.com/information/kb/):
private ip
Some DSL (or cable) networks may provide you a private IP address. The
good news is that probably doesn't change, and is secure. The bad news is
that it isn't a real IP so nobody on the internet can reach you, although
you can reach everyone. This is essentially NAT implemented by the
provider on a grand scale.
NAT
NAT stands for Network Address Translation. NAT is a technique for
translating one set of IP addresses, often private, to another set, often
public. Compare NAT to socks -- NAT is often implemented on a router or
specialized NAT box, although it is equally commonly implemented on a PC,
running NAT software.
NAT is a very flexible technique, but in the DSL world you will
interested (or maybe using) just one implementation: NAT setup to allow a
single public IP address to be simultaneously reused by multiple internal
PCs with private IP addresses. To the outside world, you appear to have
only a single IP, but you actually have many devices 'behind' this IP
address.
Note, you don't get something for nothing here! With NAT, as with socks,
incoming connections can be problematic to setup, requiring configuration
on your NAT capable router, or NAT software, to assign (map) external
services (web, FTP and so on) through to specific internal machines. Many
NAT capable devices or software are not sufficiently flexible to cope
with all requirements and software you may have, and some 'NAT
unfriendly' protocols break, even if NAT maps them correctly!
Certainly you can get multiple fixed IP addresses, etc., if you're willing
to pay for it. The question is: is the marginal utility of INDP
notifications sufficient to justify the cost of these services.
-Carl
"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com> on 08/11/2000 10:01:30 AM
To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, jkm@underscore.com
cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> notification methods
Carl,
I don't know who your ISP is but mine has no control over a server running
on my host. They do control the length of my IP lease. In my case the
lease lasts hours. Certainly enough time for a notification. (Not enough
time to host a business...they charge for that.)
I can have a fixed IP address and I can have multiple IP addresses if I so
desire. The use of INDP assumes programmatic interactions in near real
time. If I build an application that relies on this it may well impose
requirements on system/network configurations as well as influence the
components I buy.
I see a real need for programmatic as well as end user notification. We
should be specifying and building enabling technologies. Our role should
be
enable policy not to enforce it.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8792
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 139-05A
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: kugler@us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:25 PM
To: jkm@underscore.com
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> notification methods
It's equally impractical in the road warrior scenario. Most ISPs won't let
you run a server unless you pay them for the privilege.
SOHO is another problem. Windows Connection Sharing and other network
address translation schemes are often used so that multiple hosts on a LAN
can all reach the Internet through a single IP address allocated by the
ISP. Of course, ISPs will be happy to sell you more addresses, for a
monthly fee...
So, it's impractical for enterprise, SOHO, and dial-up. What does that
leave? Possibly some university networks (and Lexmark ;-) ); I can't
think of much else.
-Carl
Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com> on 08/04/2000 02:53:08 PM
Please respond to jkm@underscore.com
To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> notification methods
Carl,
Ah, now you've caught my attention... ;-)
> Me and 99% of other end users in the real world. INDP over the Internet
is
> not impossible, just impractical.
We must assume your term "end users in the real world" refers to
enterprise environments, right?
That is, if the "real world" implies a usage scenario describing a
"Road Warrior sitting in her hotel room wanting to print a document
at a local copy shop", then in your opinion can INDP satisfy those
99% of "real world" users? Or is it equally impractical as in the
enterprise environment?
...jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 14 2000 - 19:33:41 EDT