How The Internet Got Its Hourglass Shape

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The question if it ain't broke, why fix it, TCP functions fine as the backbone of the internet why replace it. Unix/and it's derivatives Linux function great as OS model and have for some 40 years, again, why replace it. The more things change the more they stay the same. For example, cloud computing, it's the Mainframe model outside of the closed eco-system that was most mainframe architecture, i.e. the thin /dumb client ... connecting to the heavy duty cloud (main frame) which has your app storage, and data storage.

It's now just been integrated to "Cloud" that is internet based, as opposed to a closed architecture.

The wheel has worked for some 60,000 years, its same basic protocol has not needed to be changed, with that said. Unless, there is a need to replace it, why do so, that's the point the researchers seem to miss.
 
That for sure goes in my list of the 10 most stupid articles I've read in my life; by reading it I've lowered my IQ some points.
 
[citation][nom]juanc[/nom]I sometimes feel I those PhDs are more or less as intelligent as garbage collectors.[/citation]

education, like ignorance, has nothing to do with intelligence.

 
This picture is missing at least 40 arrows but I get the point to make it simplistic but I just don't know why internet construction never was and never will be so simple.
 
[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]The question if it ain't broke, why fix it, TCP functions fine as the backbone of the internet why replace it. Unix/and it's derivatives Linux function great as OS model and have for some 40 years, again, why replace it. The more things change the more they stay the same. For example, cloud computing, it's the Mainframe model outside of the closed eco-system that was most mainframe architecture, i.e. the thin /dumb client ... connecting to the heavy duty cloud (main frame) which has your app storage, and data storage.It's now just been integrated to "Cloud" that is internet based, as opposed to a closed architecture. The wheel has worked for some 60,000 years, its same basic protocol has not needed to be changed, with that said. Unless, there is a need to replace it, why do so, that's the point the researchers seem to miss.[/citation]

A bicycle works fine for travel, but I'm not going to use it to go from Maine to California. The wheel also isn't made of stone now. The idea that because something "works" we shouldn't research improvements or replacements is ludicrous. Sometimes change brings about innovations in efficiency, reliability and new features to improve the lives of those using the product. That's how breakthroughs are discovered. Most of these are points that you seemed to miss.

~ Nicodemus
 
This would have been great 10 to 20 years ago when IPv4 was still practical, but it's limitation of 4.3 billion unique addresses doesn't work today. IPv4's days on the Internet are numbered. The population and technology booms since it's adoption have significantly reduced it's expected lifespan. It'll still work great for closed networks, but it's no longer sustainable when it comes to outside communications.

These guys should refocus themselves towards building a similar model for the future based on IPv6.
 
That article seems like it's a fairly trivial observation, followed by a conclusion which is supported by neither the observation nor by common wisdom.

I personally cannot think of a single reason for having multiple, fast evolving, narrow application protocols competing for the position held by IP. Just see how much trouble it has been to replace IPv4 with IPv6 despite urgent reasons to do so. Imagine having multiple organizations deplying regular changes at that level - I cannot fathom how anyone remotely ascociated with computers could thing that would enhance security in any meaningfull way, and the does nothing to prove it either. Yet somehow it arrives at that conclusion.
 
These guys should refocus themselves towards building a similar model for the future based on IPv6.
Click to expand...

While I'd admit that we need to evolve past IPv4, the guys behind IPv6 made some serious mistakes when they designed it. They designed a protocol for a "perfect" world and not a real one and have resisted efforts of the business world to get them to change it. One is that 128 bit's is entirely to freaking long for a unique address, heck 64 is too long, but somewhat doable. Next is the way of encoding address's only works for router guys, for everyone else it's not a practical method. Then they try to force you to use IPSEC, something that has broken compatibility depending on how the vender implements it. Products from different venders trying to use IPSEC between them run a 50/50 chance of it just not working. It's so bad that NSA has designed their own HAPIE specification that use's RECIPe (Remote Encryptor Configuration Information Protocol) to enable and setup the tunnels (it's a heavily modified IPSEC implementation). And to final straw is that they refuse to support any implementation of NAPT (what was have in the IPv4 world), which immediately stops many companies from switching over. It's so bad that a Chinese college student went out and built a NAPT66 module for Linux.

China has already changed over to IPv6 and guess what, it didn't do the "nice" thing and give everyone a full /64 range like the IPv6 guys said they would. China also used IPv6 to track, register and catalog every single network device in their country. And due to the forced "end to end" model it allows China's government to track exactly which websites and internet address's that every single Chinese citizen has been to.

So yeah, we're stuck with IPv4 until something better is made, possible IPv7/8 as IPv6 in it's current implementation isn't an answer.
 
[citation][nom]nicodemus_mm[/nom]A bicycle works fine for travel, but I'm not going to use it to go from Maine to California.[/citation]
Why not? I went from Portland, Oregon to Pueblo, Colorado by bike the summer that I was seventeen; it was a great experience.
 

The fact that you're only able to cite one such example speaks volumes in regards to long-distance cycling feasibility...
 
[citation][nom]WyomingKnott[/nom]Why not? I went from Portland, Oregon to Pueblo, Colorado by bike the summer that I was seventeen; it was a great experience.[/citation]
time
 


They've been saying that for over 10 years, still hasn't happened. It's not an equipment question, every router, switch, server and PC in use supports IPv6, software isn't an issue as NAT64 exists for that. Networks and Companies aren't switching because IPv6 is cumbersome and too restrictive in its requirements.
 
optical fiber, twisted pair, coaxial, but no microwave? seriously the work horse and back bone since the 70's AT&T built their net work on with microwave and satellite tech is not even mentioned?!
this article and it's findings are only covering 1/2 at best, of what is supposed to be the wheel and all if it's spokes, not just half of them at opposite ends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom