Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
At 12:41 PM 7/3/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: > However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust. > intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very > Intelligent Secure network is usually a nightmare of unexplained failures > and limited scope. Counter-example: SS7. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me That is a good counter example, although it comes with some caveats. I work with SS7 regularly. SS7 should be simple since it performs a simple function, it is actually complicated and complex. But, since SS7 takes us away from the human-managed "static routing" of the older (MF?) trunk networks systems, it's intelligence creates redundancy and limited failover. Perhaps Clark will create something that is win-win like that... (I assume you are giving this as a "intelligent vs. simple" counter-example, since SS7 is an example of good scale because it trusts blindingly.) John
RE: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
But he DID make it more feasible and useful. And he DID throw thousands of them away! ;) Scott -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote: On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote: > > On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
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 pgpxsiYd7i6lj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On 07/03/05, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> registered 24 June 1995
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
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[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: > However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust. > intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very > Intelligent Secure network is usually a nightmare of unexplained failures > and limited scope. Counter-example: SS7. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
No, _telephone_service_ has changed, but the POTS/PSTN is pretty much the same as it has been for the past 20 years. - ferg -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And the phone network was "pretty far along to fundamentally change" - and then it id. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
> 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
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:29 AM, Simon Waters wrote: On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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_6techhea d Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels. '"Look at phishing and spam, and zombies, and all this crap," said Clark. "Show me how six incremental changes are going to make them go away."' Well I suppose it is a good sales pitch, but I'm not terribly sure that these are a network layer problems. Good point. However a network architecture is not limited to network layer only (at least in classroom network architecture goes from physical to application layers) I hope that figuring out which layers should hold what responsibilities would be one of the questions to clarify in this re- examination of network architecture effort. We could move to a network layer with more security that makes it impossible for network carriers to identify or intercept such dross, which might at least deal with the crowd who think "filter port 25 outgoing" is the solution to all the Internets woes ;)
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
--David Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In fact, Fergie's later comment "... We're pretty far along in our >current architecture to 'fundamentally' change" is actually the root of >what I think DC is trying to get at. I think it's a very reasonable >question to ask: Is the Internet heading towards a local maxima? (I >don't know the answer!) What is it possible to change in today's >Internet? Imagine a couple of things that seem desirable: Better security & authentication systems are on the top of my list. But this is an extremely slippery topic for a number of reasons--primarily, I think, because operating systems and applications are commercial endeavors, and therefore market driven. I think that as long as the Internet, and more importantly connectivity to it, remains in the commercial realm, these particular issues are difficult to acheive, regardless of even the standards processes, IMO. Not that I don't think it is not able to be achieved, just that it's commercial nature makes it more difficult. :-) - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
At 06:29 AM 7/1/2005, you wrote: On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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_6techhea >d > > Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration > network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels. '"Look at phishing and spam, and zombies, and all this crap," said Clark. "Show me how six incremental changes are going to make them go away."' Well I suppose it is a good sales pitch, but I'm not terribly sure that these are a network layer problems. We could move to a network layer with more security that makes it impossible for network carriers to identify or intercept such dross, which might at least deal with the crowd who think "filter port 25 outgoing" is the solution to all the Internets woes ;) Raw research often produces rewards and unexpected results, so I applaud and encourage work in this direction. However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust. intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very Intelligent Secure network is usually a nightmare of unexplained failures and limited scope. This is why researchers should sometimes ignore experience-hardened network technicians :) I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. John
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote: Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels. Not that I want to throw any more fire on this, but I think the article is talking about National Lambda Rail. From what I've seen, this is supposed to be a next-generation Internet2 based on wavelengths instead of pipes. I don't know a lot about it but, from what I've seen, my impression is this. Keep in mind that I'm not really involved with the NLR stuff directly, so my thoughts are really as an outsider looking in. To clarify a bit: Dave Clark is talking about a new, proposed research agenda for networking research that emphasizes the heck out of making the research become real and relevant. He's not talking about building an NLR or an Internet2, though both NLR and I2 are resources that can and probably will be used as a part of the demonstration network, if the project really takes off. In fact, Fergie's later comment "... We're pretty far along in our current architecture to 'fundamentally' change" is actually the root of what I think DC is trying to get at. I think it's a very reasonable question to ask: Is the Internet heading towards a local maxima? (I don't know the answer!) What is it possible to change in today's Internet? Imagine a couple of things that seem desirable: If research came up with an improved inter-domain routing protocol that had faster convergence, better security and better stability than BGP, but that was unfortunately in no way backwards compatible, could we deploy it? A solution to DDoS that required another change to the basic IP packet format? An improved intra-domain management and control system? Of those, some seem possible -- particularly the latter, given that it could be deployed by a single ISP on its own, giving it (ideally!) a competitive advantage over others. A BGP replacement, if the designers/ietf/etc. couldn't figure out a way to make it backwards compatable? Not so sure. Another IP packet format change, after all of the pain of trying to get IPv6 deployed? Perhaps more of the answers to these questions would be "yes" if it were possible to demonstrate - at scale - that the new protocols were actually effective and worthwhile. Or perhaps the answers would be "yes" if that demonstration network exploded in popularity because it had those features, and the NSF found itself with another Internet on its hands. :) I think it's these kind of questions that Dave Clark is trying to get at, much more than just trying to build a really fast demonstration network. Is the clean-slate approach the way to go? I don't know. It could work out well, or perhaps academia would be better served by sending more of our students to summer internships at ISPs who're doing innovative things. I do know that Dave Clark is a damn smart guy, and he does have TCP under his belt loops. Sometimes you have to aim for the sky... Disclaimer: While I've heard some of the discussion about this proposal, I'm speaking only for myself on this one. -Dave
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
Well, it _is_ research, after all... :-) - ferg -- John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
At 9:58 AM -0500 7/1/05, John Kristoff wrote: On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
> It is about wasting taxpayers money while watching china deploy IPv9. Though I'm not positive, my impression is that NLR currently being built not by the NSF but by "member institutions" - which is to say by research Universities that are a part of the Internet2 project. Because we're being asked to pay for it directly, many of the institutions are balking because we don't see the benifit. I Its likely that NLR is looking back to the NSF because of this lack of "funding"... Eric :)
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
> 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. Not that I want to throw any more fire on this, but I think the article is talking about National Lambda Rail. From what I've seen, this is supposed to be a next-generation Internet2 based on wavelengths instead of pipes. I don't know a lot about it but, from what I've seen, my impression is this. Keep in mind that I'm not really involved with the NLR stuff directly, so my thoughts are really as an outsider looking in. Internet2 is significantly under utilized, so we don't need a new network to provide significantly more bandwidth (we're at 10% utilization I think). Institutions on Abilene connect in through GigaPops and, in terms of the "last mile", getting gigabit rate metroEthernet down to a Gigapop isn't as bad as it used to be given that many fiber providers have gone under recently and given the collective bargining that's going on among members (see the Quilt project - http://www.thequilt.net). Just as this situation is being exploited to make purchasing fiber inexpensive for NLR, its also made it inexpensive for local consortiums to purchase for themselves (e.g. the Northern Crossroad's metro ring purchase, NEREN, etc.) NLR's scheme looks like the ideas floated in the 90s about creating this massive ATM network (this time, its going to be DWDM and MPLS), where you could provision all sorts of "services". When they built it (vBNS), my impression is that no one wanted those services and hence Abilene was built. Again, the institutions really just wanted packet transport and didn't care about the overly services and it seems that one of NLRs big benifits is mainly its ability to provide these overlay services. Next, NLR seems to be supplying waves and fibers in the exact same locations as Abilene, which is to say the same locations that already have both a glut of fiber and high speed connectivity. NLR isn't going to help me solve any of the problems I have with connectivity today because it goes only where I already go today. Another big drawbback is that NLR has been a closed club with a very high cost of entry. Again, if the cost of buying fiber assest directly (or one or two schools collectively) is less than joining NLR, why would I want to join? These issues, and I'm sure others, has resulted in somewhat of a lack of interest in NLR which seeems to be party of why NLR is looking to merge back into the Internet2 project. At least, that's my view from from Boston... Eric :)
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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
Why not create a special taskforce to research implementing RFC 2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service considdering the dodo or alternatively achaeopteryx (both extinct)? It is about wasting taxpayers money while watching china deploy IPv9. We do not need IPv6. We do not need P2P serverers for everybody. We do not need worldnews. IPv4 is good enuf for us. 127.0.0.1 is the only ip we really need. We need a strong gouvernement and free tv for everybody. Lets go to China :) After toying a bit with Eudora I found out it was working - really! How about IPv6? It is working. Everybody can use it - even with windows! How about http://www.inaic/index.php?p=manual-upgrade http://www.inaic/index.php?p=internet2-tool It is working! People use it! IPSs use it! Even countries are changing! In the Middle ages, if they ever existed in the first place, church was doing research. Today we have to do it ourselves. Radio was not invented by gouvernment, only hindered. The automobile was not invented by gouvernement only licensed and taxed. Regards - and have a nice weekend Peter and karin Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-6252-750308 (VOiP: sipgate.de) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +1-360-226-6583-9563 (INAIC) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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_6techhea >d > > Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration > network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels. '"Look at phishing and spam, and zombies, and all this crap," said Clark. "Show me how six incremental changes are going to make them go away."' Well I suppose it is a good sales pitch, but I'm not terribly sure that these are a network layer problems. We could move to a network layer with more security that makes it impossible for network carriers to identify or intercept such dross, which might at least deal with the crowd who think "filter port 25 outgoing" is the solution to all the Internets woes ;)
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think Dave Clark is talking about something more fundamental than > simply IPv6 and also more far reaching. Also, the experience with > retrofitting most of IPv6's new features into IPv4 shows that it > is good to have role models and that is what Dave is proposing. Indeed. Looks like I still had the IPv6-goggles on from the earlier thread(s). :-) > More information on the new architecture work is here > http://www.isi.edu/newarch/ Thanks for the pointer. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
> > Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration > > network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels. > The real work is done elsewhere. There _are_ commercial ISPs nowadays > who have 30Gbps (30, not 3) of native IPv6 bandwidth US-EU and can > provide native IPv6 transit throughout Europe and the US. But no press > releases. I think Dave Clark is talking about something more fundamental than simply IPv6 and also more far reaching. Also, the experience with retrofitting most of IPv6's new features into IPv4 shows that it is good to have role models and that is what Dave is proposing. More information on the new architecture work is here http://www.isi.edu/newarch/ --Michael Dillon
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:28:31AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. I'm tired of the tax money wasted everywhere for "demonstration networks" which cost huge amount of money, have fat pipes for nothing and lots of press coverage (and if interconnected to the DFZ world often introduce routing problems for those who actually try to use IPv6 in production). But still most ISPs don't get native IPv6 service from their v4 upstreams. The real work is done elsewhere. There _are_ commercial ISPs nowadays who have 30Gbps (30, not 3) of native IPv6 bandwidth US-EU and can provide native IPv6 transit throughout Europe and the US. But no press releases. Some talk about deployment, some actually do. Intersection between those camps is relatively small. Best regards, Daniel PS: and it's not an US ISP nor tier 1 :-) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
