Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
Yeah, I saw that... With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical, but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on fundamentally)? - ferg -- Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote: I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some fundamental changes to Internet architecture. http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical, but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on fundamentally)?
From the article it seems clear that the focus is on 'new', not 'changed'. No need (and probably little likelihood now) to change this architecture if you don't want to, but a new architecture may come along that make this one seem quite outmoded.
I'm skeptical about something truly new coming from this specific project, but I hope it comes from somewhere. With any luck someday we'll be referred to as those 'old interphants'. :-) John
At 9:58 AM -0500 7/1/05, John Kristoff wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical, but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on fundamentally)?
From the article it seems clear that the focus is on 'new', not 'changed'. No need (and probably little likelihood now) to change this architecture if you don't want to, but a new architecture may come along that make this one seem quite outmoded.
It's also worth remembering that packet-switched networks took decades to eclipse circuit-based networks and that the early Internet was, for all intents and purposes, useless for the vast bulk of humanity in addition to being a tax-funded research project. It takes a lot of seeds to grow a field of wheat. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Kilbourn kilbo-list@forest.net --------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm skeptical about something truly new coming from this specific project, but I hope it comes from somewhere.
the problem is that there are really no fundamentally new great concepts. so this is likely doomed to be yet another second system syndrome. randy
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:50:03AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
the problem is that there are really no fundamentally new great concepts. so this is likely doomed to be yet another second system syndrome.
And the world demand for computers might someday approach 100? How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ... unless we *try a lot of stuff*. How many light bulbs did Edison throw away? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ... unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can really know what it'll do. At what point do entirely off-network experiments become on-topic for nanog? (I doubt anyone has an easy answer, I just wanted to throw the question out there.)
How many light bulbs did Edison throw away?
42? -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> registered 24 June 1995
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
How many light bulbs did Edison throw away?
42?
That's atleast 2 orders of magnitude off: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story074.htm interesting story though.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ... unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can really know what it'll do. At what point do entirely off-network experiments become on-topic for nanog? (I doubt anyone has an easy answer, I just wanted to throw the question out there.)
How many light bulbs did Edison throw away?
edison didn't invent the light bulb...
42?
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:08:39PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ... unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can really know what it'll do. At what point do entirely off-network experiments become on-topic for nanog? (I doubt anyone has an easy answer, I just wanted to throw the question out there.)
How many light bulbs did Edison throw away?
edison didn't invent the light bulb...
So he didn't. And me a regular Wikipedian...</ot> Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
But he DID make it more feasible and useful. And he DID throw thousands of them away! ;) Scott -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:07 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:08:39PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ... unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can really know what it'll do. At what point do entirely off-network experiments become on-topic for nanog? (I doubt anyone has an easy answer, I just wanted to throw the question out there.)
How many light bulbs did Edison throw away?
edison didn't invent the light bulb...
So he didn't. And me a regular Wikipedian...</ot> Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:43:40 EDT, "Jay R. Ashworth" said:
And the world demand for computers might someday approach 100?
To be fair to TJ Watson, please note that IBM was *already* engaged in the production and sales of automated tabulating equipment, and when reading his comment *in historical context*, it's pretty obvious that what he *meant* by "computer" was "high end machine that only a few could afford". In other words, what we now call a "supercomputer". And sure enough, looking at the current Top500, http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2005&M=06 we see that only 6 sites have bought 20Tflops+ systems, but 19 are 10Tflop+, and there's a *huge* pool of very similar smaller systems down in positions 300-500. And this shape has remained remarkably consistent - anywhere from 3-7 systems that are *way* out in the lead, a second string of several dozen smaller, and a huge pool of lower-end machines. So TJ was totally right - at any given time, there's only 5-6 sites willing and able to buy that very top-end box....
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical, but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on fundamentally)?
- ferg
Many people probably share similar concern. My personal view (I've left MIT 16 years, so no relation to Clark): - I believe we all wish the Internet architecture, as we have now, has some problems here or there. - But how to make it better? Quoting Dave, looking one incremental step each time is unlikely the best way to proceed. - To see see more clearly where we should head to, one can try a 2-step approach: + if one gets all one's wishes: how would we want the architecture to look like, given what we know today (that we didn't 30 years ago)? + if/once one gets that question answered, we can then tackle the next question of how to get there from here. my 2 cents, Lixia
-- Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html? tw=wn_6techhead
Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical, but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on fundamentally)?
Most of the routing and security issues on todays IP4/IP6 internet could be solved by deploying HIP or derivatives thereof without requiring fundamental changes to the infrastructure since the major "flaw" of current generation Internet is tying the network identity and host/application indentity into one which is then overcome with whole spectrum of solutions along the lines of anycast, load-balancers, NAT, etc. Pete
- ferg
-- Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
participants (12)
-
Chris Kilbourn -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) -
J.D. Falk -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Kristoff -
Lixia Zhang -
Petri Helenius -
Randy Bush -
Scott Morris -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu