Carl Malamud: Internet Talk Radio, flame of the Internet. 

Malamud: This is Geek of the Week, and we’re talk­ing to Mike O’Dell. Mike is the Vice President of Research and Development at UUNET Technologies. Welcome to Geek of the Week, Mike.

Mike O’Dell: Greetings.

Malamud: What does a VP of R&D do when you’re just run­ning a net­work busi­ness­es. This is a…no-brainer, right? You don’t need research and development.

O’Dell: Uh, well I’d like to think of it as sort of chief cat herder. Well actu­al­ly it turns out there’s actu­al­ly a lot of stuff to do, sur­pris­ing­ly. Because run­ning the net­work, there’s a day-to-day real-time com­po­nent of wor­ry­ing about the routers and the links and the net­work man­age­ment soft­ware and so forth. But the oth­er jobs have to do with devel­op­ing new ser­vices. I mean, it’s one thing to think of a new ser­vice and it’s anoth­er thing to sort of know how to cause that ser­vice to exist. Because in net­works… One of the things I learned at Bellcore basi­cal­ly was that the ser­vices that net­work pro­vide are in fact… You cre­ate them by some kind of con­fig­u­ra­tion change in some of the net­work ele­ments. Like, you a wire to a port and turn on rout­ing. That’s how some­body gets Internet access. 

Or you pro­vide some oth­er kinds of ser­vice. You install fax soft­ware on a machine and bring it up and make it work. And there’s all these things that have to hap­pen before the ser­vice is real, right. So the part of the world I look after wor­ries about that, cre­at­ing new services.

And then to run a net­work you actu­al­ly need a lot of infor­ma­tion. And you need it stored in places oth­er than inside the routers. We just start­ed look­ing at writ­ing down the rout­ing pol­i­cy for UUNET in an inter­est­ing way that you can do com­pu­ta­tions about, and it’s a pret­ty amaz­ing. It’s very complicated. 

Malamud: Well what type of com­pu­ta­tions might you want to make?

O’Dell: Specifically you’d like to be able to check your rout­ing con­fig­u­ra­tion against one of your peer net­works and see that you both agree that you— You know, that we’re send­ing you the right NAPs and you’re send­ing us the right NAPs. And that we agree with that set should be. Some of this is the work that Daniel Karrenberg sort of start­ed with RIPE, with the RIPE 81 route reg­istry thing. We’re sort of work­ing with them on that. But the whole prob­lem of even just writ­ing down such things like that is… 

Malamud: Is this sim­ply a mat­ter of pre­vent­ing rout­ing loops, or are you try­ing to enforce appro­pri­ate use poli­cies and do oth­er forms of pol­i­cy work?

O’Dell: It’s all those. It’s all of those things. For what­ev­er rea­sons— I mean, you have bilat­er­al tran­sit agree­ments with some oth­er net­work, that’s behind a third one and you know, their routes come to you through a tun­nel or some­thing like. A lot of odd things hap­pen because of the real­i­ties of the well-controlled anar­chy. So uh…well-controlled.

Malamud: Well if it’s well-controlled anar­chy, right now no one real­ly gov­erns the Internet. We have an IETF and an Internet Society, and we have all these oth­er groups. But ulti­mate­ly it’s the oper­a­tors like your­self get­ting togeth­er and try­ing to decide how to do things. Is that gonna scale? Are we gonna be able to keep this some­what infor­mal coor­di­nat­ing mechanism?

O’Dell: Well… I guess if you look at busi­ness in gen­er­al, right. I mean, busi­ness rela­tion­ships in gen­er­al are con­duct­ed like this. Companies have rela­tion­ships with oth­er com­pa­nies. And one of the things you do as a busi­ness is man­age those rela­tion­ships, and make them work, because they’re…you know, no com­pa­ny does every­thing, and you have to cooperate—particularly in the Internet. I mean, it’s val­ue is that it does talk to every­thing. And if you mess that up, then every­one los­es as a result of it. 

There’s a lot of dis­cus­sion at least on some from the mail­ing lists late­ly about an oper­a­tions task force or some­thing like that. I mean, there’ve been var­i­ous straw man pro­pos­als float­ed around about get­ting togeth­er for var­i­ous pur­pos­es like that on rout­ing coor­di­na­tion and things like that. And some of those will become more for­mal­ized in the sense that you’ll devel­op a nota­tion that lets you write it down and that it can be record­ed and ana­lyzed by pro­grams, so you can tell whether…you know, two peo­ple that think they’re talk­ing to each oth­er are in fact—you know, have very dif­fer­ent views of what’s going on. 

Malamud: But do we need an oper­a­tions area to coor­di­nate that for us? Something like a CCITT for the tele­phone world, or some­thing— Do we need the United Nations to run an oper­a­tions direc­torate, or the Internet Society, or—

O’Dell: I’m a, uh… I’m not as rav­ing a lib­er­tar­i­an as a cou­ple of friends of mine. But I think you make it in every­one’s best inter­est to do the right thing, and then let that hap­pen. I mean, again a frame­work, a place for some of that to live, a place for it hang its hat, is prob­a­bly good. And the notion that it should hap­pen in prox­im­i­ty the IETF is prob­a­bly a good thing, because the things that are being done these days are being dri­ven much more by oper­a­tional real­i­ty. I mean, if the real­i­ties of a rout­ing pol­i­cy and so forth weren’t what they are, you would­n’t need BGP 4, right, to do all of these things, right. I mean, if the world was sim­ple you would­n’t need address class­es, there’d be you know, max­i­mal­ly sim­ple cas­es there’s only one, right. So, that does­n’t work. 

Malamud: Well you worked at Bellcore for a while. Do the tele­phone com­pa­nies coor­di­nate their activ­i­ties? Surely they have sim­i­lar issues of coor­di­na­tion? Do they coor­di­nate their activ­i­ties in the infor­mal de fac­to basis, or do they have some cen­tral body that does that for them?

O’Dell: Well they have very for­mal struc­tures for doing this, main­ly because they’re large enough to— You know, they in the busi­ness are large enough to attract lots of atten­tion from peo­ple who think their job is to you know, mind oth­er peo­ple’s stores. But it’s impor­tant. I mean, a good exam­ple is the inter­na­tion­al num­ber­ing plans that let a phone switch here talk to some phone some­where else. I mean that’s a case of… You need some place to stand to have those dis­cus­sions. And how com­plex or for­mal that gets there’s some out­side pres­sures of var­i­ous you know, trust con­cerns and things like that. But it’s real­ly much more of every­body basi­cal­ly under­stand­ing that this needs to work. 

So, it will acquire more struc­ture over time. But I think it… I mean, the Internet world is still pop­u­lat­ed by the free spir­its that I don’t think there’s… I think any head­long rush into cre­at­ing some orga­ni­za­tion­al edi­fice [laugh­ing]will prob­a­bly not get very far.

Malamud: Eventually, though, will the Internet be like the tele­phone com­pa­ny? Will it be this this mas­sive, fun­da­men­tal infrastructure?

O’Dell: Gee, I don’t whether to say yes or no to that. 

I hope it’s like the phone com­pa­ny in some ways. In par­tic­u­lar that peo­ple come to under­stand that the Internet is a place to do busi­ness. It’s a tool that you can use to do busi­ness. It’s a mar­ket­place where you can do busi­ness. I think it’s the first real exam­ple of a transna­tion­al mar­ket­place. It’s a meet­ing ground where peo­ple in Tokyo and London and New York can all sit around the same vir­tu­al con­fer­ence table, and you shrink the world down to a point. And pre­vi­ous­ly you had to be in London or in Tokyo or in Singapore, or wher­ev­er, to do cer­tain kinds of com­merce at very high lev­els, right. You either had to be there or you had to have one of your peo­ple there to rep­re­sent you. And the Internet stands a chance of chang­ing that in some inter­est­ing ways. So that you don’t have to be there you could be vir­tu­al­ly there. And that might change the way some of these things hap­pen dramatically. 

So in that sense— In the sense that the tele­phone— You know, imag­ine what it was like to do busi­ness before there was a tele­phone. Where you had to send mail—you know, paper mail, or you actu­al­ly had to go see some­one to do a deal. Now, you can argue that you still do in a great many ways, but to order office sup­plies you pick up the phone when you called Office Whatnot, and they send the stuff over, right. I mean, that’s the way it works. And the notion that before you’d have to go shop­ping, right, is sort of hard to think about these days. So, in that sense, the impact of the tele­phone… I want it to be like the telephone. 

And in some sense that’s the posi­tion we’re in now. Imagine what it was like ear­ly on try­ing to sell a tele­phone to some­one, try­ing to sell tele­phone ser­vice, right. Trying to explain to them what this thing does that’s so inter­est­ing, right. I mean, I think that’s sort of the posi­tion we’re all in at this point now. We’re here for the rein­ven­tion of the tele­phone. I mean, you don’t get to be there very often when the tele­phone gets invent­ed. When some­thing which has the poten­tial to change the way peo­ple inter­act and the way that com­merce can be done on a glob­al scale, it’s not very often you get to be there. 

So in that case, I hope it is very much like the tele­phone. and the sense that I would hope it isn’t is that the tele­phone, for very com­pli­cat­ed rea­sons, is thought about in very niche, nar­row ways, right. And recent­ly some of the com­pa­nies are start­ing to do inter­est­ing ser­vices using the tele­phone infra­struc­ture. But it was so chan­neled into such a nar­row def­i­n­i­tion for a long time, by then there was this huge mass that sort of kept it that way. That you know, We define what the phone is and does, and any­body else’s notion about what it could be or could do you know…you know, you’re not the phone com­pa­ny. We don’t care, we don’t have to,” right. And that’s the thing that I would assid­u­ous­ly strive to avoid. And the val­ue of this thing comes from all the things we haven’t thought of, right. In the same way the val­ue of the phone— I mean, before you could buy a phone you had to think of all the things you were going to do with it, right, and sort of jus­ti­fy each one. What a wacko thing to do, right. But you know, peo­ple still have to make those same cases.

Malamud: So it’s keep­ing that inter­face open and keep­ing the focus on a general-purpose infrastructure?

O’Dell: Exactly. And the job—you know. I mean, it was inter­est­ing, and talk­ing with peo­ple at Bellcore. And the dif­fer­ence in point of view, in that they… Some of the folks there, some of the old folks out of the tele­pho­ny tra­di­tion, thought of appli­ca­tions in terms of doing spe­cif­ic things, right. And you know, many times in con­ver­sa­tions, I would say, No no, the appli­ca­tion is to sim­ply move packets.”

Well, but what’s in those packets?”

I don’t know. I won’t tell you,” right. They won’t tell you,” right. You can’t infer any­thing, just move the pack­ets, and every­thing else will take care of itself.

Malamud: Well that’s no way to run a phone company.

O’Dell: [exas­per­at­ed gasp] Well… [Malamud laughs] Good. You know. That’s fine. 

I mean, I think that’s chang­ing. I think that mind­set is chang­ing, but that’s a real men­tal shift. I mean, there are a bunch of folks there that do under­stand. But the tra­di­tion is so long, and so ingrained. So, that’s important.

Malamud: Mike O’Dell, late­ly we’ve been hear­ing a lot about con­ver­gence. We’ve been hear­ing about cable com­pa­nies, and about tele­phone com­pa­nies, and about the explo­sive growth of the Internet. What’s gonna hap­pen with all three of these dif­fer­ent mind­sets, these dif­fer­ent worlds, con­verge on the same place? How’s that going to affect the Internet, and how’re we going to affect them?

O’Dell: Well, peo­ple talk about con­ver­gence… I mean the only thing I know about con­ver­gence is that when I used to fix col­or TVs, you’d take a dot-bar gen­er— You know, you’d switch the pic­ture tube, you’d hook up a dot-bar gen­er­a­tor and get all the hash­es to line up so that you did­n’t have three dif­fer­ent pic­tures on the screen at once—that’s what I know about convergence. 

Um… I don’t know what’s going to hap­pen. If I could tell the future that well I would­n’t have to do this for a liv­ing. [chuck­les]

Malamud: When you’re run­ning an Internet ser­vice provider—

O’Dell: Right.

Malamud: —you’re doing R&D for them. And let’s see some large cable com­pa­ny walks up to you and says, Gee, we want to do this Internet thing,” what does Internet” mean in the con­text of your con­sumer’s cable TV sys­tem? What does that mean? Can they send email from their cable box?

O’Dell: Uh…I sus­pect it won’t be very long before that’s pos­si­ble. I mean you hear… Just read­ing between the lines, and this is pure spec­u­la­tion on my part. You know, the zeroth order of machin­ery is that yes, you can cer­tain­ly run data over cable sys­tems or at least mod­ern cable sys­tems that’re bidi­rec­tion­al in var­i­ous speeds. I mean oth­er folks are doing it. That’s doable. And then you read that peo­ple are doing set-top box­es that will run you know, Modular Windows and have proces­sors in them and so forth. 

So, the issue here is I sus­pect not fun­da­men­tal­ly tech­no­log­i­cal. In the sense that you know, the box­es will get pow­er­ful enough. I think there was an arti­cle in EE Times about how Bell Atlantic imag­ines hav­ing a cable box with 1,000 MIPs of per­for­mance in it. Sort of…maybe that’s if you include the DSPs to decom­press the dig­i­tal video, but— 

Malamud: Should I be able to devel­op my own box and put it on there and get rid of theirs? Should there be some kind of a require­ment that any­body’s box can fit on there, or—

O’Dell: Well, it depends on what their” means. The cable sys­tems prob­a­bly have some inter­est in at least some kind of inter­op­er­abil­i­ty spec that says that you know, if you put the thing on the net­work it won’t blow us up. Because cable sys­tems are actu­al­ly fairly…creaky ana­log crea­tures in a lot of ways. And even when they’re dig­i­tal they’re still ana­log. So they have an inter­est in mak­ing sure that you know, you don’t put 110 volts back into it. Or what it has to get bul­let­proofed to the lev­el that the tele­phone net­work is in that sense. 

Traditionally the cable peo­ple haven’t been big fans of you buy­ing your own box and plug­ging them in, main­ly because they got mon­ey for rent­ing that. For large val­ues of Gee, I have no idea…“ For instance like you know, Apple just announced the TV Mac, which is the 14” inte­grat­ed Mac, 14-inch col­or, and it’s basi­cal­ly an LC III inside except it has a TV tuner in it. So you can watch TV and…I don’t quite under­stand what this gad­get’s sup­posed to be oth­er than you know, of oth­er than an inter­est­ing straw man to put out there and just see— Because I think the real­i­ty at this point is that nobody real­ly knows. I mean all this is so new, and I think nobody real­ly knows what any­one wants because this is a case of in some sense the enabling tech­nol­o­gy lead­ing the require­ments in the sense that if you sim­ply wait­ed around for some­one to write a require­ments doc­u­ment on what home infor­ma­tion access would mean, then you would sit there for a long time. And I think that’s an exam­ple. I think peo­ple will try a lot of things. 

It will always be impor­tant that if the their” you men­tioned was The Internet. That yes, it will be very impor­tant for peo­ple to always to be able to plug their box into the Internet. Because again, the thing that will make it flour­ish and thrive are all the new ser­vices that nobody involved today can imag­ine. And the abil­i­ty to plug that in and make that go will remain crit­i­cal­ly important.

Malamud: Mike O’Dell, it used to be that life was very sim­ple. There was one net­work, it was the ARPANET. There was this world of the Usenet out there, but that was­n’t on the map as far as the cen­tral bureau­cra­cy was con­cerned. In a way, your com­pa­ny has made life dif­fi­cult. Because now we don’t have a sin­gle back­bone, there’s NSFNET as a tran­sit net­work, but UUNET Technologies has the alter­nate tran­sit. And NASA runs a tran­sit net­work. End there’s one called EBONE in Europe. How are we going to make all these net­works talk to each oth­er? You’ve been involved in the Global Internet Exchange, for exam­ple. Is the solu­tion for glob­al con­nec­tiv­i­ty in the future?

O’Dell: Well there’s a bunch of inter­est­ing straw men being float­ed, par­tic­u­lar­ly around the folks that’re active in the GIX, about how to do some of these things or what’s the next step. There’s a bunch of inter­est­ing ideas, and some of them will prob­a­bly get tried in the next year so. 

But again, I think the real­i­ty is that there’s nobody— I mean. You men­tioned that nobody runs the Internet. The prob­lem is nobody could run the Internet. I mean, there is no orga­ni­za­tion that is suf­fi­cient­ly pow­er­ful, or could be empow­ered suf­fi­cient­ly, to direct how it works. So in some sense I think the future is like every­thing else. At some lev­el, peo­ple have to agree to get along. Or they don’t. And if they don’t, you know, bad things hap­pen. And if they do, good things may hap­pen. So I think things like the GIX con­nec­tion points and peo­ple basi­cal­ly under­stand­ing that the val­ue they bring to the table—well, that the val­ue that they bring to their cus­tomers is not just that you can call next door, but you should­n’t call the oth­er side of the world. And that’s the win.

Malamud: Well your com­pa­ny UUNET appears to be pur­su­ing two strate­gies for con­nect­ing to the world. On the one hand, your net­work has always had lots and lots and lots of direct con­nec­tions to lots of the oth­er mid-levels and region­als. You can get right to em.

O’Dell: Mm hm.

Malamud: And so, rather than go through the NSFNET back­bone you con­nect straight to SURFnet or oth­er networks. 

The oth­er strat­e­gy appears to be this idea of an Internet exchange, the Commercial Internet Exchange—the CIX, or the Global Internet Exchange, which is a piece of vir­tu­al real estate, a ring where any­body can con­nect in.

O’Dell: Right. Well that’s real­ly not that dif­fer­ent. I mean in some sense, yes. But UUNET has always been big on bilat­er­al con­nec­tiv­i­ty agree­ments sim­ply because we start­ed out as a ful­ly com­mer­cial provider and…you know, you basi­cal­ly had to put your own wires in, right, because you could­n’t run traf­fic on wires that oth­er peo­ple bought. That’s…the rule. And so we’ve been active all along in doing that. 

And basi­cal­ly what these con­nec­tion points are is that rather than— It’s the…you know… It’s n ver­sus n‑square, in the sense that if you cre­ate these nexus points, then basi­cal­ly by pulling one wire to that point, you essen­tial­ly can cre­ate bilat­er­al agree­ments with six of the peo­ple, except you know, you don’t need six wires. 

Now, there are net­work engi­neer rea­sons why you may want six wires. If for no oth­er rea­son than sin­gle points of fail­ure and things like that. But I think those are as much… A lot of it real­ly is net­work engi­neer­ing. I mean, some of it is geopo­lit­i­cal in some real sense. But I think that’s—

Malamud: Well, as a net­work provider in some ways I’m your worst night­mare. You get some­body like me who all of a sud­den starts putting hoards of data into the net­work, and every­one starts cross­ing your back­bone and you’re unable to plan because I did­n’t tell you in advance I’m gonna start a radio sta­tion. How do you deal with the idea that the peo­ple inject­ing the data in the net­work are out of your con­trol? How do you plan a nation­al net­work in that world?

O’Dell: Well… That is one of the fun­da­men­tal prob­lems. Part of it is that the pric­ing mod­els give you some abil­i­ty to effect…you know, whether some­one is liable to do this to you. But at the same time you basi­cal­ly have to make some assump­tions about traf­fic dis­tri­b­u­tion, and then engi­neer the net­work based on that. I mean you watch it. And when you dis­cov­er that one of your assump­tions was wrong you move wires and— And that’s actu­al­ly not that big a deal. I mean, if you go back and look at the…you know. I think back when BBN was issu­ing the first net­work engi­neer­ing reports and they’d say Well, we need a link from here to here, and from here to there,” I think a lot of peo­ple that read those back then said, Okay, they moved a wire,” and it was sort of duu­uh, I won­der why they did that. But nowa­days I think a lot more peo­ple are understanding—are com­ing face to face with traf­fic con­fig­ur­ing. And I think that’s— 

Again, there are mod­els that are there. Again, that’s one of the things that phone com­pa­nies do under­stand a lot about, is doing some of that. Not nec­es­sar­i­ly with our traf­fic dis­tri­b­u­tion, but they are at least com­fort­able with the scale of the prob­lem. And luck­i­ly at the moment we’re grow­ing at a rate that sort of the brain can keep in front of the reality.

Malamud: Do ser­vices like World Wide Web and Mosaic…Mosaic being the soft­ware, the Web being the under­ly­ing data. Did those take you by sur­prise? Did you expect the kind of rapid growth that we’ve seen in that area?

O’Dell: Um… I think if you had antic­i­pat­ed that kind of ser­vice, the fact that it was very pop­u­lar would not have been a great con­clu­sion to reach. The ques­tion is…predicting when dyna­mite ser­vices are going to be thought of by some­one, well I mean, you know. I think it’s eas­i­er to play the stock market.

Malamud: Did the Web influ­ence your net­work when that took off in pop­u­lar­i­ty? Did that mean you had to do things to your network?

O’Dell: In some sense… Probably but I don’t know. In the sense that the kin­da traf­fic stuff that we look at does­n’t— I mean, we look at gross traf­fic aggre­ga­tion I mean, these links car­ry giga­bytes per day. So actu­al­ly looking…trying to do very much with any­thing with very very instan­ta­neous traf­fic traces… I mean you can look at those and try to say Ooh, this is Web traf­fic” or some­thing. The prob­lem is that you can’t look at that I think on a scale that will tell you very much. I think pri­mar­i­ly you have to look at the gross traf­fic flows. Now—

Malamud: What about mul­ti­cas­t­ing? Is that an exam­ple of a sin­gle ser­vice that does [crosstalk] impact you?

O’Dell: Uh, that one yes. That you actu­al­ly wor­ry about. Because that’s an exam­ple of where one stream comes in and sev­er­al streams go out. So there’s a mul­ti­pli­er effect on that. And in some sense if you don’t do it right, then your cus­tomers will get their own tun­nels and back­haul the data the wrong way across your net­work. So mul­ti­cas­t­ing is absolute­ly some­thing that we think about a lot.

Malamud: Is that because we haven’t ful­ly deployed mul­ti­cas­t­ing in our routers yet, or is it because fun­da­men­tal­ly mul­ti­cas­t­ing is just gonna real­ly impact—

O’Dell: No, fun­da­men­tal mul­ti­cas­t­ing does some­thing the oth­er traf­fic does­n’t do. I mean, a point-to-point cir­cuit, right, there’s only that traf­fic. When a data stream goes into a mul­ti­point dis­tri­b­u­tion, it fans out eight ways, right, eight times as much goes out as went in. So that’s a very crit­i­cal thing. So the abil­i­ty mul­ti­plies the load, okay. And there you actu­al­ly have to look care­ful­ly at where you put the mul­ti­cast routers, and how much you’re load­ing links, and things like that. And I think that’s… Again, not many things… There real­ly isn’t very much expe­ri­ence in doing this kind of stuff. I mean, con­fer­ence bridges and dis­tri­b­u­tion nets that have been done before with the phone folks real­ly fair­ly dif­fer­ent crit­ters. I mean, they’re ana­log, they’re engi­neered very care­ful­ly one at a time, and they’re not the kind of…you know, what I call splat­ter­cast­ing. You know, you through this thing and it explodes and the data goes all direc­tions. That’s a fair­ly new gad­get. And understanding—you know, try­ing to think about how you want to do things, and how you think about that is a plan­ning process. I think every­body is grap­pling with how to get a han­dle on that.

Malamud: When we do mul­ti­cas­t­ing today we tend to do it in a glob­al sense, which the Internet has always been. I can talk to any oth­er per­son on the Internet. Is it pos­si­ble that mul­ti­cas­t­ing will force us to begin think­ing in terms of small­er spaces. I mean, might UUNET run mul­ti­cas­t­ing and just do events with­in your net­work instead of just every­thing go out to the world at the same time?

O’Dell: Um…

Malamud: Are you gonna be a TV sta­tion, in oth­er words. Is UUNET gonna have to get in the busi­ness of sched­ul­ing and dis­sem­i­nat­ing content.

O’Dell: Oh, gee. I would— Just sit­ting here think­ing about it for ten sec­onds I would hope not, sim­ply because I’ve got enough to do with what we’re doing. 

No, I think part of what we’re see­ing is part of the state of evo­lu­tion of the cur­rent mul­ti­cast stuff. I mean, Steve Deering’s new stuff that does the prun­ing so that in some sense— You know, rather than send all the data every­where all the time, you can basi­cal­ly send a con­nec­tion back up— The span­ning tree is cre­at­ed dynam­i­cal­ly, and you can send a request back up and the data tees off sort of at the best place. And I think that this is an area that’s real­ly ripe for research. And I think the real improve­ments will come in fun­da­men­tal under­stand­ings and fun­da­men­tal algo­rithm improve­ments on how to do it. I mean, this is one of the prob­lems that I think is you know, fun­da­men­tal­ly hard with a cap­i­tal H. And that it just requires seri­ous brain pow­er to get it bet­ter. So…

Malamud: Mike O’Dell, you’ve bridged two worlds for a long time. You’ve actu­al­ly bridged sev­er­al worlds. You worked at Bellcore, yet you’ve done a lot of Internet work. You’re active in the IETF, but you’re also on the USENIX board of direc­tors and you’re the edi­tor for Computing Systems for USENIX. Are these dif­fer­ent worlds, or are they com­ing togeth­er? It used to be oh I do Unix, oh I do net­work­ing, oh I do data­bas­es. Is this now one big tech­ni­cal community?

O’Dell: Yes and no. There cer­tain­ly are…there are large inter­sec­tions. And some of them unfor­tu­nate, like some­how this rumor got start­ed to you know Internet is some­thing Unix machines do.” With it with the reverse impli­ca­tion that only Unix machines do Internet, right.

Malamud: And that’s what I was lead­ing up to.

O’Dell: Right. That’s—

Malamud: I mean, is the PC world part of the Internet?

O’Dell: Oh absolute­ly. Absolutely. I have a Macintosh on my desk, that speaks TCP. I mean, and I can tel­net around just like it was some oth­er kind of com­put­er. So—

c Are you run­ning Unix on it?

O’Dell: No. It run runs MacOS.

Malamud: But how do you get a com­mand prompt?

O’Dell: [laugh­ing] Uh… I have an X Window Mac [indis­tinct] Unix machine.

Malamud: Well thank you very much.

O’Dell: That’s for when—you know, when you itch, right, and you just have to type something.

Malamud: We’ve been talk­ing to Mike O’Dell, and this has been Geek of the Week.

Malamud: This is Internet Talk Radio, flame of the Internet. You’ve been lis­ten­ing to Geek of the Week. You may copy this pro­gram to any medi­um and change the encod­ing, but may not alter the data or sell the con­tents. To pur­chase an audio cas­sette of this pro­gram, send mail to radio@​ora.​com.

Support for Geek of the Week comes from Sun Microsystems. Sun, The Network is the Computer. Support for Geek of the Week also comes from O’Reilly & Associates, pub­lish­ers of the Global Network Navigator, your online hyper­text mag­a­zine. For more infor­ma­tion, send email to info@​gnn.​com. Network con­nec­tiv­i­ty for the Internet Multicasting Service is pro­vid­ed by MFS DataNet and by UUNET Technologies.

Executive pro­duc­er for Geek of the Week is Martin Lucas. Production Manager is James Roland. Rick Dunbar and Curtis Generous are the sysad­mins. This is Carl Malamud for the Internet Multicasting Service, town crier to the glob­al village.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.