Re: Internet2

[Douglas Dever <dougdever () gmail com>]

On 4/26/05, Adam McKenna <adam () flounder net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:18:08PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
> >
> > > Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
> >
> > If your ISP has congested links you should complain and switch if not
> > fixed promptly.
>
> WTF..  She asked a simple question and five people are slamming her for no
> apparent reason.

Actually, I interpreted it as someone asking a question while
obviously imbibing too often from the I2 kool-aid pitcher.  My
attitude towards I2 is that it is a really, really nice private WAN
that I have the joy of funding indirectly through NSF grant awards and
such - oh, and it has a really catchy name.  That doesn't make it
"better," "less congested" or "faster" than "the Internet."  As
Patrick already pointed out, it is difficult to say anything about the
Internet as a whole.

On 4/26/05, Vicky Rode <vickyr () socal rr com> wrote:
> Then again, I'm not saying that Internet is going to crash and burn, its
> doomed and that one should switch to I2. All I'm asking is for some
> insight about potential risk of I2 abuse, that's all.

That's good to know, because if the internet were to crash and burn,
Abilene would be right behind it.  As far as I can see from the
outside, there's nothing beind done on I2 that couldn't be done on
"the Internet" with fat enough pipes and quality-of-service.

-doug