Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#41

Post by adammil »

jerf wrote: post #33
r4pha wrote: post #27

I had always looked to the OSI model as a _frame_ thought which a communition channel can be analysed. If I intercept my internet cable, I assume I can idealy measure the signal and fit it on the 7 layers of the OSI model. I fail (honestly) to see how that is a failure, as seems to be the starting point. Isn't the OSI model _one_ way to look at a medium?

That was not the original intention. That is the story that for some reason network professors continue to tell themselves as a reason to teach this model. The original intent was for there to be 7 clear layers, with various protocols for each. Why the profs stick so close to this instead of teaching a more realistic model is beyond me. Why use an inaccurate theoretical model when you could use an accurate one instea…

Why do you say the OSI model is unrealistic? Writing the simplest Hello World web service call takes advantage of the OSI model, even though you might not notice it unless you also write network drivers and manufacture network cards. In fact, I've worked at companies where it would be accidentally accurate if you simply labelled the dev teams with the layer of the OSI model their work corresponds with. You practically can't read a network sniffer trace unless you understand the OSI reference model.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#42

Post by mturmon »

derleth wrote: post #34
mturmon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"not sure the author realizes TCP is a virtual circuit protocol" That struck me too -- kind of undermining the simple narrative of "connection-full telecom biggies vs. connection-less insurgents". It would have been worth a note in the article, because it's in IEEE Spectrum after all. Not a networking pro, but I believe the converse is also true, that OSI has specifically connection-less protocol elements (e.g., CLNS…

Actually, it seems ARPANET was not designed to survive nuclear war: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/histor... > It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Int…

Cerf does say that part of the reasoning behind packet switching was robust command and control in the event of nuclear war. Cerf doesn't say that ARPANET, in itself, was designed for that (and neither did I).

This is also consistent with the following quote in the Baran interview you cite:

  Baran: But the origin of packet switching itself is very much Cold War.
  The argument was: To have a credible defense, you had to be able to 
  withstand an attack and at least be able to show you had the capability 
  to return the favor in kind.
So there is no disagreement on that point, and your corrective "Actually, ..." is misplaced.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#43

Post by nucleardog »

rogerbinns wrote: post #24

There were also some differences in design tastes. For example OSI went with ASN.1[1] for binary descriptions rather than plain and simple. TCP and IP just use 8/16/32 bit fields in a predefined byte ordering and that is it. That makes TCP/IP considerably easier to eyeball. In higher level protocols like email, the TCP/IP world tended towards ASCII based protocols which are far more flexible and future proof, while O…

I've implemented ASN.1 BER from scratch before (don't ask). If "three different string formats" doesn't say designed by committee, I don't know what does.

Sounds like OSI would have been an internet built on what is essentially binary-encoded XML. I'd say we dodged a bullet.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#44

Post by npsimons »

nknighthb wrote: post #21
npsimons wrote: post #3

As usual, /usr/games/fortune provides some insightful commentary: "On the other hand, the TCP camp also has a phrase for OSI people. There are lots of phrases. My favorite is `nitwit' -- and the rationale is the Internet philosophy has always been you have extremely bright, non-partisan researchers look at a topic, do world-class research, do several competing implementations, have a bake-off, determine what works be…

This is why every time Mozilla starts whining about Google playing with new things without consulting everybody else first (e.g. Dart, NaCl), I lose more respect for them (actually, at this point, they've pretty well exhausted it all). Basic advancement comes from somebody deciding to try something new, not from getting everybody to agree on what comes next.

That isn't the same at all: Mozilla and Google are producing actual products that embody competing standards, and both Google and Mozilla have a lot of power/control over "what comes next". Given both Google and Mozilla's track records, I'd say that Mozilla's concern is warranted.

Your analogy might work better if Mozilla was a non-practicing committee that brought a competing standard with no implementation out much later.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#45

Post by kabdib »

adammil wrote: post #41
jerf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was not the original intention. That is the story that for some reason network professors continue to tell themselves as a reason to teach this model. The original intent was for there to be 7 clear layers, with various protocols for each. Why the profs stick so close to this instead of teaching a more realistic model is beyond me. Why use an inaccurate theoretical model when you could use an accurate one instea…

Why do you say the OSI model is unrealistic? Writing the simplest Hello World web service call takes advantage of the OSI model, even though you might not notice it unless you also write network drivers and manufacture network cards. In fact, I've worked at companies where it would be accidentally accurate if you simply labelled the dev teams with the layer of the OSI model their work corresponds with. You practicall…

> You practically can't read a network sniffer trace unless you understand the OSI reference model

I read these all the time. I can't remember the last time I needed to know what the OSI layers were called; they're utterly irrelevant to networking as near as I can tell.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#46

Post by pessimizer »

lmm wrote: post #40
aidenn0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's slightly different because Google is in a relatively unique position of being able to unilaterally deploy new technology, as they both serve a large fraction of the traffic on the internet, and have a very popular browser. Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would…

>Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would be quite detrimental to Mozilla. Surely Mozilla adoption of Dart or NaCl would make this less likely, not more.

If they can keep up. Google has the deep pockets to add a new, complex feature to the browser every other week - they don't have to be better than current tools (though they very well may be) just completely different. If Mozilla just tried to chase and implement every one, not only would they set a pattern of being willing to follow, which would lead to them being expected to follow, but they also have less money and manpower, so they would implement those new GoogleThings(TM) badly. They wouldn't have time for their own stuff, so their only option left would be to follow badly and be nothing but the company that implements Google stuff with a slightly more liberal license. They would lose all market share to Chrome for being a shitty imitation of Chrome, and eventually cease to exist.

So there's an incentive to intensely scrutinize everything that Google is trying to do, and only to implement the best stuff. And let Mozilla's projects be specs, or in javascript, or be protocols, and sell the other browsers on them, hopefully getting other vendors like MS, Apple, Google, and Opera to think they're neat enough to buy in.

Though friendly, here's an inherent asymmetry in the relationship between Mozilla and Google. Mozilla should throw around its little market power as hard as it can.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#47

Post by rodgerd »

npsimons wrote: post #3

As usual, /usr/games/fortune provides some insightful commentary: "On the other hand, the TCP camp also has a phrase for OSI people. There are lots of phrases. My favorite is `nitwit' -- and the rationale is the Internet philosophy has always been you have extremely bright, non-partisan researchers look at a topic, do world-class research, do several competing implementations, have a bake-off, determine what works be…

Because, of course, TCP/IP doesn't have any bloody stupid, boneheaded decisions that it continues to perpetuate through multiple revisions (hey, isn't it great we have to read a whole header to work out the address information!)

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#48

Post by dllthomas »

bandushrew wrote: post #38
nknighthb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly. Your argument is a caricature of itself. Success and the mere capability to engage in purely hypothetical anti-competitive behaviors suddenly means ordinary innovation practices are evil. Presumably at this point Mozilla would like to join Microsoft in one of its various anti-trust complaints against Google for having dared to offer users better products.

So long as google is storing the password to my network in plain text on its servers just because I let one of my friends access my network, they do not get to boast about innovation. I cannot clearly express the loss of respect that action has engendered.

Not to defend Google, but... set up a guest network.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#49

Post by peterashford »

aidenn0 wrote: post #26
nknighthb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why every time Mozilla starts whining about Google playing with new things without consulting everybody else first (e.g. Dart, NaCl), I lose more respect for them (actually, at this point, they've pretty well exhausted it all). Basic advancement comes from somebody deciding to try something new, not from getting everybody to agree on what comes next.

It's slightly different because Google is in a relatively unique position of being able to unilaterally deploy new technology, as they both serve a large fraction of the traffic on the internet, and have a very popular browser. Mozilla is understandably wary about new technologies from Google, because it would be very easy for them to make it so that the best youtube experience can only happen in chrome, which would…

Likewise, Mozilla is in a unique position in that they prefer the status quo - having Brendan Eich on board with them - and they can easily maintain the status quo by refusing to support other party's efforts.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#50

Post by adammil »

kabdib wrote: post #45
adammil wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say the OSI model is unrealistic? Writing the simplest Hello World web service call takes advantage of the OSI model, even though you might not notice it unless you also write network drivers and manufacture network cards. In fact, I've worked at companies where it would be accidentally accurate if you simply labelled the dev teams with the layer of the OSI model their work corresponds with. You practicall…

> You practically can't read a network sniffer trace unless you understand the OSI reference model I read these all the time. I can't remember the last time I needed to know what the OSI layers were called; they're utterly irrelevant to networking as near as I can tell.

I was referring to the whole concept of the model and the purpose of the layers, not simply reciting from memory the names of the layers.
Post reply on HN