4 ms·
No, but if you didn’t, the internet wouldn’t really work all that well. It was the fact that participants, despite being independent, all agreed (either explici
by otterley 2mo ago
No, but if you didn’t, the internet wouldn’t really work all that well. It was the fact that participants, despite being independent, all agreed (either explicitly or implicitly) to adhere to the standards that it became a global network. If they hadn’t, the result would have been more of the same: independent networks that only had narrow interoperability at best. It’s a textbook example of how global cooperation can yield incredible results.
Advocating to do things against agreed-upon standards without a compelling reason and without giving due consideration to the adverse consequences is one of the hallmarks of a bad engineer. Even Microsoft played nice with Internet standards for the most part (although with some notable exceptions at the application layer that got them well-deserved criticism).
- inigyou 2mo agoIt was the fact that adhering to the standard was in the best interest of each participant. When it isn't, they don't.
- otterley 2mo agoIt's impossible to know how often participants chose to stick to the standards anyway despite it not being in their best interest. Do you have any specific examples?
- inigyou 2mo agoLinux routers responding ICMP from 192.0.0.8 when not having an IP address (currently being standardized). Clouds using class E address space (240.0.0.0-255.255.255.254). Routers that drop IP packets with options. The entire concept of NAT until the existing behavior was eventually standardized. Unnumbered interfaces.
- fc417fc802 2mo agoI think all of those are examples of "[doing] things against agreed-upon standards [with] a compelling reason and [with] due consideration to the adverse consequences".
- inigyou 2mo agoAnd the compelling reason is always profit.
- otterley 2mo agoNo it isn’t. Sometimes it’s security, or making the most out of limited resources. Besides, not all profitable ventures are bad.
- fc417fc802 2mo ago"The entire concept of NAT" was for profit? "Linux routers responding ICMP from 192.0.0.8 when not having an IP address" was for profit? What? The grocery store down the road only sells me things for profit but I hope you're not trying to imply that's somehow nefarious.