Talk:IP over Avian Carriers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible Applications[edit]

While the new "Possible Applications" represents a slight improvement, it still needs to be cleaned up or removed. It needs to be more explicitly claim (in a sourced fashion) that this would never be implemented in practicality. The current tone is more akin to going into the Dihydrogen monoxide article and talking about how many deaths were due to the substance. Such tidbits would be true, but they would not be encyclopedic. --Bletch 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a joke. The article makes clear that it's about a joke. If you think that that section, specifically, needs to reiterate that the topic is a joke, that's fine, and if you make edits to that effect, that's wonderful; but I think it's very reasonable for an article about a joke to include factual information supporting the joke, even if the factual information isn't enough to turn it intoa non-joke. —RuakhTALK 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the fact that the information in question is factual isn't the point. The problem is with how it is presented in a such a straight faced manner that reading it, one might suspect that it might in fact it be a practical method. Wikipedia articles about jokes cannot themselves be structured as jokes themselves. Even if pigeons get used for data transfer, do you really believe that IP would be the choice protocol? I've attempted to rephrase the paragraph as a direct comparison of bandwidth, rather then the tougue-in-cheek crap that is currently there. On a side note, does this really qualify as a [fictional telecom protocol]? Sounds like that the protocol exists; even if its a totally unpractical protocol its still not fictional. --Bletch 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if pigeons get used for data transfer, do you really believe that IP would be the choice protocol? That's a very good point. In real life, pigeons don't have hands, so couldn't perform the three-way handshake properly. ;-)
In all seriousness, though, I think your recent edit was a big improvement. :-)
—RuakhTALK 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy[edit]

In its current state, tI think there can be no confusion. In any case, this is an editing matter, not one for speedy deletion. DGG 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they'd take Internet Protocol[edit]

If IP is used, a large TCP window would be useful. (j.engelh 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It might also be desireable to use a larger MTU than the original implementation's 150. --Nibios 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup (1500). Problem is, IIRC, that the MSS can only be 64K max :-/ -j.engelh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengelh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

The article shouldn't treat the subject seriously, because it wasn't intended seriously. I'm editing the intro to reflect this. Chris Cunningham 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USB keys and pigeons =)[edit]

How about equipping the pigeons with a couple of USB-keys? Say one 4gb dongle for each leg!

8 gb delivered in 6000 secs is a competitive bandwidth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.71.253 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't really implement the IP protocol. It'd be a modification of it.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the 55% media loss would be crippling. The system would need some heavy redundancy built in to provide anything resembling reliable transition. Plasticup T/C 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee of 55% media loss. The webpage put up by the Bergen guys explains the packet loss proble as involving pigeons that were distracted by fraternizing with wild pigeons. They eventually did what they were supposed to. in an environment with no wild pigeos this would be much less of a problem.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the pidgeons![edit]

Anyone know what happened to the pidgeons that didn't arrive? Are there any comments on the expense of pigeons as the transfer medium? 55% media faliure per transfer would be bad if it happened to anything else :D SirEelBiscuits (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows. All I know is that they were never seen again.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... LOL. Sorry! 125.21.243.66 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Beast - The Great Pigeon Race[edit]

Hungry Beast is an Australian television programme. The show is a half-hour, structured as a cross between a current-affairs program and a sketch comedy show. The presenters were given a single editorial instruction: "tell us something we don't know".

Hungry Beast decided to test Australia's internet coverage after the PM suggested that the opposition's policy on the national broadband network is akin to having Australians communicate by carrier pigeon. Marc would try to send data over the net, Dan would drive it there himself, and Chris... well Chris had a pigeon by the name of Margaret in his corner.

Hungry Beast - The Great Pigeon Race —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slark (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sean olley? minor problem.... Only aussies can watch the newsbyte.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video data transfer[edit]

Here is another recent article about using pigeons to transfer bulk amounts of data, in this case video data. — Loadmaster (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the link to the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscategorised?[edit]

If IPoAC has been successfully implemented as per the "Real-life implementation" section of the article then surely it is no longer a "Fictional telecom protocol" and thus should not be in that category. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.104 (talk) 15:46, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IP over Avian Carriers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article shows bias during the races?[edit]

Many of the statements made state that the internet connection did not finish the races and "had to be restarted". As this was a very common problem back in the early days of the internet due to dial up using often unreliable analogue telephone lines, software solutions were quickly created to combat this, eg by allowing one to resume download without having to discard all (some might still be discarded) progress made before. For example a modern torrent file sharing client can be stopped and resumed on whim, with at most a few currently downloading chunks/fragments being lost. For file downloads from the internet "download accelerators" existed long before torrent, at least as far back as the 1998 which was when I first experienced them in use downloading "large" files over dialup over several days of non-continuous operation to take advantage of off peek connection rates.

To me it sounds like many of these race tests were made by people who either were ignorant of such technologies or who purposely did not know them to handicap the outcome of the races. I am aware this is meant to be a silly article as the entire concept of IP over carrier pigeon was originally a joke, however in my opinion a disclaimer should be made referencing that the results of the race were potentially biased against the internet connection to emphasize just how slow or unreliable it was, for example deliberately restarting a transfer from the beginning instead of resuming it even though it likely would have still lost the race against the carrier pigeons in the end.

I hate slow internet speeds as much as everyone else and fully support the arguments of how bad the connections were that the people made. But honestly this looks a bit under handed to me, and similar results could easily be obtained from very good internet connections given enough user bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.103.78 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) This refers to "old history" - and as a person around computers since the 70s, data rates were low - 300 Baud superseding 110 Baud originally. Indeed the big joke of the time was that the best bandwidth was a cargo plane full of Mag Tapes. This was how real world work was actually done for very large volume data transfers anyway. Mainframe and minis updates were sent by posted Mag tapes. Any linked computers were by dedicated data lines that were expensive and tweaked. Dialups were stuck with originally 300 Baud - that was gradually upgraded by technical advances that worked over standard voice lines. ADSL was highly expensive.

2) Download accelerators usually involved some sort of pre-compression and post decompression, needed compatible SW at each end, and were not standardized. Bit torrent was not even in existence at the original time and did not catch on rapidly, as indeed most of the various data compression systems for audio, graphics etc. But Web pages were also written in stripped bare HTML for loading speed, not the current massive sizes they are now.

3) Commercial ISP providers usually provided no such standard compression accelerator facility, unless you paid, and there was no point unless the party with who you connected also had compatible technology. Facility to start/stop without loss was rare.

4) Loading a file onto a "data stick" does not involve the IP protocol anyway.

5) Apart from displaying a lack of historical perspective in understanding the history of the technologies involved, you also seem to display either a lack of sense of humor, or one so advanced that it is not easily perceived as funny.

Other commenters also fail to understand why such articles were produced in the early days of the RFCs - they were traditional April 1 matters - you can find a list of them all if you search. However the IT theory involved is real.

In Australia, Political intervention has crippled an intended high speed all fibre national Broadband system by insisting on using substandard HFC cable and obsolete copper cable pairs as part of the system "for cost saving" which has actually produced massive cost overruns in the original specs and delays anyway. Memes of Pigeons and tins with string are common - and Australia has now slipped to about 53rd in the world (actually behind many 3rd world countries) from last time I looked. Such "races" are still likely to see pigeons here win :-) 202.53.38.109 (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media Articles relevant to topic[edit]

Satire Site

National Carrier Pigeon Network Launched To Compete With NBN https://www.betootaadvocate.com/advocate-in-focus/national-carrier-pigeon-network-launched-to-compete-with-nbn/ 202.53.38.109 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

The example used (in the lead no less!) is entirely frivolous, and "in" on the joke. Either establish relevance or take it out, please. CapnZapp (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DNS[edit]

It might be appropriate to use 1.1.1.1 DNS queries over Telegram to resolve IP addresses for IPoAC? See https://twitter.com/jgrahamc/status/1144272344803946496?s=19 76.10.141.7 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead bird photo[edit]

Photograph of dead pigeon
Drawing of dead bird

The photo is irrelevant and potentially upsetting on an otherwise humorous page. I've seen it added/removed a number of times (with IP editors reverting - no discussion). I've removed it and don't see a reason to bring it back (despite a few reasons to keep it off). Before readding please discuss here. Thank you. Arzg (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Arzg, Have you considered keeping the artistic expression of dead bird from revision 949649066? Hujkis (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced any depiction is needed, but if so, that would be my preference. Arzg (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Packet loss is an important risk of IPoAC and deserves to be illustrated. 47.188.177.90 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dead bird is intended to be funny. The RFC is intended to be funny. Seems like a good fit to me. The arguments that it should be removed because it is shocking or because death is offtopic don't hold much water with me. I don't know what kind of compromise we're trying to strike with the artistic expression version, but I prefer the photograph because it's actually a pigeon. ~Kvng (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dead bird photo made the article for me. Don't think the drawing would have the same meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.85.158 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the photo. Whether it "made the article" for someone isn't grounds to keep: Wikipedia isn't aiming to be funny for its own sake -- even though plenty of the time, the facts are themselves funny, and Wikipedia can easily be funny for its own sake. The fact that the RFC is intended to be funny isn't relevant: pull up the page about any comedy movie, do you expect the article to be riddled with puns and gags? At the same time, the fact that it's shocking isn't grounds for removal: Wikipedia hosts plenty of shocking content (WP:CENSOR). The real question here is whether the image adds to the informational content of the article (MOS:PERTINENCE). This image won't teach a reader anything new, and even worse, if it does, it's probably misleading and incorrect. There's no evidence in the article that packet loss occurs significantly from pigeons dying, and I strongly suspect that packet loss is more due to the bird losing packets or birds going somewhere else. It is true that some pigeons probably die and this is responsible for some packet loss, but this image is not representative of packet loss. If someone wants to add to the text of the page about causes of packet loss, that makes sense, but the image will only distract from the content rather adding anything to the article. I'm going to remove the image from the article unless someone can provide a reason why the image adds to the informational content of the article. The only comment above trying to do that is the comment by 47.188.177.90, which sounds to me to be tongue-in-cheek (or if not, unsubstantiated). Timeroot (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the photo is illustrating, "Unintentional encapsulation in hawks has been known to occur, with decapsulation being messy and the packets mangled."[1] While there is no requirement an article about a funny topic be funny, there's also AFAIK nothing prohibiting or discouraging this. Dry morbid humor is not uncommon in academic publications. ~Kvng (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that line, and interpreted it as referring to hawks eating the packet off of their own leg, producing a pellet -- thus a "capsule". I don't see how it related to birds dying... Timeroot (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted it as hawks eating (encapsulating) the pigeon followed by a poop reference (messy decapsulation). The pigeon definitely does not survive. ~Kvng (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, seeing the pigeon photo with its description immediately clarified what "packet loss" includes, and that damage to the physical data layer (the pigeon) is a consideration. 2601:600:9500:286:60FE:321A:D399:B9E9 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to restore this photo? ~Kvng (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, use 4chan or whatever for silly image memes. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image probably made me laugh out loud at a Wikipedia article for the first time ever, it should definitely be kept. Its not gory and people usually dont have the strongest emotional attachment to pigeons anyway. jonas (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This ^^^^. Especially the pigeons that practice their clog-dancing routines three feet above my head at first light every day because some local halfwit is feeding them. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's clever - Packet loss, dead pigeon, but which one of the bullet points does this image support? Dead by disease or another bird of prey? Those are the two possible options and it supports neither directly. And again, comedic value, as another editor also pointed out, is not an argument. Eik Corell (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about both, indirectly - two birds one photo. Sure, comedic value is not a good reason to keep or remove the photo but neither is reports of upset readers. ~Kvng (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not sure why nobody has simply considered including an image of a particularly mean looking hawk. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ RFC 2549 p.3

Transmission of quantum information[edit]

The information carried by the bird cannot be copied as far as I understand it (making multicast impossible) and reading the letter changes the bird's behaviour, so would it be possible to transmit qubits with IPoAC to establish a quantum channel? Hybrid Dog (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on image of a dead pigeon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus to delete the image, based on it not being particularly informative or illustrative (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE) and being needlessly shocking (WP:GRATUITOUS). Closing this a touch early as there was near-unanimous agreement. Endwise (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should an image of a dead pigeon be used to illustrate packet loss? Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

I will express an opinion on this but have meanwhile fully protected the article due to the ongoing slow edit war. The image that has been added/removed since its first addition which I think was on 25 November 2016. A different image in the same style was on 23 March 2017. The most recent six edits have involved removal/addition of the image which can be seen at IP over Avian Carriers#Risks (permalink). An earlier discussion is at #Dead bird photo above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Delete the photo and the whole Risks section. The section is mostly a synthesis of primary sources that are themselves unreliable. The RFCs are informational and/or experimental and none have made it to the standards track. The one secondary source on H5N1 looks like an unreliable blog post. The photo is of a random dead bird, not demonstrated packet loss from an attempted implementation of the protocol. None of the sources cited have such a photo. Should we start adding random pictures of broken wires or dead network admins to our Internet Protocol articles? I think this section is going to need better sourcing and a rewrite to survive. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Purely decorative. Also, this article does tip its toe on fiction guidelines, and I would suggest a total copyedit to make the article having an out-of-universe perspective. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure that particular photo could be considered "decorative", but it certainly violates MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Not to mention Biographies of Dead Pigeons. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read; Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Pictures of dead animals, especially if the death was visibly caused by physical harm, do have a high potential of offending readers. Some people express amusement in the section above; while they enjoy the presence of the image, they do so exactly because of the shock/surprise effect that is undesirable in an encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia should not be taking itself so seriously. ~Kvng (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The image is decorative and not based on a source. I appreciate the humor of this article and the image, but the image should not be in this article. Also, as noted above, the image may be offensive and shocking to some of the reading public. And since the image is not critical for illustrating the text, it should be removed per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:PLA and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditch thee picture What's the opposite of decorative? It doesn't inform or illustrate, and as jokes go, it's pretty sick. Up top, a cute pigeon looking into the camera. Aah, how sweet. Scroll down - a dead pigeon. I actually had a moment of nausea when I saw it. Girth Summit (blether) 17:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider removing the Risks section entirely. I don't think it has enough WP:WEIGHT to merit an entire section, nor is it sourced very well. As for that poor pigeon, it's more of a "decoration" than an actual depiction of packet loss. Mark viking summed it up well. Sunmist (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a shame because this is genuinely funny, but we are not in the business of being funny. Pictoreal jokes and being a reliable encyclopedia don't mix. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I wouldn't exactly call it decorative, but that's only because "decorative" has a connotation of being aesthetically pleasant. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022[edit]

Include as another Risk the possibility of a cat-in-the-middle attack, in which cats may take down pigeons carrying datagrams:

  • Occurrence of a cat-in-the-middle attack, in which cats may take down pigeons carrying datagrams.
Wevertoncordeiro (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023[edit]

The first line should be rewritten to as follows: "In computer networking, IP over Avian Carriers (IPoAC), also known as "flappy disk", is a joke..." Terraffin (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post benchmark of pigeons vs. broadband[edit]

Similar to the incidents in Other avian data transfer methods, a Washington Post team recently graphed when it makes more sense to send data by pigeon or by a typical Internet connection in each United States county: https://wapo.st/40AhOpo 168.94.245.37 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IP_over_Avian_Carriers&oldid=1202992485"