2. The Dance of Co-Opetition Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting MY: +60 (19) 3299 445 www.brandenburg.comUS: +1 (408) 426 9827 dcrocker@brandenburg.comFax: +1 (408) 273 6464

3. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting2 Brandenburg Consulting Dave Crocker 4 Internet since 1972 j Email, EDI, Fax,... j TCP/IP, Net mgmt j Standards 4 Development j Product, service j MCI Mail, DEC, SGI j Startups Consulting Services 4 Internet business planning 4 Product, system design 4 Technical audits 4 Standards track/contribute

4. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting3 The Internet world today – Useful (boring) messaging – Web excitement u Multi-media u Marketing u Information access – Huge installed base u Easy entry u Explosive growth Good News

5. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting4 The Internet world today – Limited bandwidth, – Variable delay – Information searching difficult – Confusing, inadequate security – Inconsistent management – Proprietary extensions Bad news

6. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting5 Overview  Open vs. proprietary  Networking requires open 4Disturbing trends?  Competitive pressures 4Fiefdoms vs. community  Core vs. edges 4Infrastructure takes time

7. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting6 Open vs. proprietary  Proprietary 4Control 4Focus 4And timeliness  Open 4Multiple vendors 4Broad review 4Generality

8. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting7 The meaning of “open” Publication: Any may read & implement Ownership: Group control of specs Development: Broad participation

9. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting8 Internetworking requires open  Casual interaction 4Without prior arrangement 4Participants must support same set of capabilities  Fragile basis 4Deviation by any components prevents interoperability 4Standards “based” isn’t good enough

10. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting9 Styles of use  Receiver pull 4Interactive sessions 4Individual, foreground refinement  Sender push 4Messaging 4Bulk, background distribution (Mark Smith, Intel)

11. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting10 Upper vs. lower layers  Open transport / Proprietary applications? 4Still requires prior arrangement 4Still requires multiple apps for same task  Explosion of user complexity  Increased price

12. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting11 Competitive pressures  Quicker to market  Carefully tailored to vendor need  Creator benefits  Non- interoperability  Different package for every function  Inadequate public review

13. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting12 Core vs. edges... My object Object Channel Secure My object FTP EMail Web Secure My object Secure My object EMail My object Web Security Web Server MTA EMail Security

14. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting13 Core  Infrastructure 4Support along entire path 4Adoption delay 4Operation fragility/dependence 4No central control  Time before useful / popular 4Decade

15. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting14 IPv6  Began with simple goal 4Increase address space 4Became design by committee  Should have deployed 3 years ago 4Lucky to get any installed base by 2000

16. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting15 Edges  Any two hosts 4Instantaneous utility 4No special infrastructure benefits j Plus j Minus  Time before useful / popular 4Year / half-decade

17. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting16 Intra- vs. Inter-nets?  Intranets 4Move to ISP administration style 4WAN lines usually congested  Internets 4Virtual corporations need public facilities

18. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting17 Integration  System operators 4Hate extra boxes  Users 4Hate extra applications 4Except when they love them

19. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting18 Facts of life  Real-time Global Internet 45-10 years, minimum  High-bandwidth to global users 45-10 years, minimum

20. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting19 Cliches to live by  Customers buy solutions  A product that solves three problems 4Is better than one that solves only one

21. © 1998 D. Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting20 Fiefdoms vs. community?  Vendor initiatives 4Market lead  Folded into public standards 4Open access 4Open enhancement It all depends on market demand.