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

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#51

Post by [deleted] »

kisielk wrote: post #39
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…

Just because they can do large deployments doesn't mean it will be successful. Look at what happened with Buzz and Wave for example.

[deleted]

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#52

Post by andrewflnr »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #18
bandy wrote: post #2

…but we're going to keep asking questions about the 7 layer model in interviews as if it were useful in the real world because that's what we learned about in school.

Obviously the best job candidates are the ones that scoff at the prospect of learning something more than is absolutely necessary.

Straw man. Curiosity is good, but it's foolish to rule people out because an obsolete network model hasn't caught their interest or made it to the top of their research queue yet.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#53

Post by shirro »

bandy wrote: post #2

…but we're going to keep asking questions about the 7 layer model in interviews as if it were useful in the real world because that's what we learned about in school.

Came here looking for 7 layer model. It seems to be the only surviving legacy of OSI. From memory Computer Networks by Tanenbaum mapped every protocol into that damn model. Typical of committees to have 3 more layers than needed.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#54

Post by pfraze »

rodgerd wrote: post #47
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!)

C'est la normes

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#55

Post by andrewflnr »

adammil wrote: post #50
kabdib wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't need the OSI model to understand layers of abstraction. Since the OSI model doesn't fit the observed layers very well, it seems pretty useless from that perspective.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#56

Post by bandushrew »

dllthomas wrote: post #48
bandushrew wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

heh. yes, I could setup a guest network to workaround the fact that google stores my network access passwords in plain text on their servers whenever I allow someone using their software on my network.

or they could stop betraying the trust of their users. I mean, seriously. It would be one thing if they were 'only' totally compromising the network security of people who chose to use their software. But they are compromising the security of anyone with a network who lets their friends and family on board.

My network isn't a problem one way or another, I am actually fairly comfortable with the protections it has. OTOH the networks of non-techy people and family across the entire world that have been compromised by google's astounding arrogance(?) and stupidity(?) kind of bother me.

Honestly, I do not understand how an entirely tech oriented organisation like Google could do something like this. I am Jacks bewildered confusion.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#57

Post by sinkasapa »

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.

I don't see how this statement applies to Dart or NaCl:

"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 best, write it down and make that the standard."

I think it fails on "non-partisan" and "competing implementations" for sure. Maybe Mozilla is whiny. I don't know. But these aren't great examples of the benefits of the Internet philosophy as stated above.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#58

Post by dllthomas »

bandushrew wrote: post #56
dllthomas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

heh. yes, I could setup a guest network to workaround the fact that google stores my network access passwords in plain text on their servers whenever I allow someone using their software on my network. or they could stop betraying the trust of their users. I mean, seriously. It would be one thing if they were 'only' totally compromising the network security of people who chose to use their software. But they are comp…

Like I said, I am not arguing that Google did right. I'm just saying, if you're handing out a single key to people with arbitrary configurations you should probably assume it's compromised. Your friends could just as well have had some other malware.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#59

Post by bandushrew »

dllthomas wrote: post #58
bandushrew wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

heh. yes, I could setup a guest network to workaround the fact that google stores my network access passwords in plain text on their servers whenever I allow someone using their software on my network. or they could stop betraying the trust of their users. I mean, seriously. It would be one thing if they were 'only' totally compromising the network security of people who chose to use their software. But they are comp…

Like I said, I am not arguing that Google did right. I'm just saying, if you're handing out a single key to people with arbitrary configurations you should probably assume it's compromised. Your friends could just as well have had some other malware.

yes, that is a generally correct statement.

Re: OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t

#60

Post by jerf »

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…

"Why do you say the OSI model is unrealistic?"

The layers do not reflect reality. The higher up you go, the less obvious the mapping to the things that really exist gets, and the mapping is getting fuzzier over time (or, phrased another way, the OSI model is not only unrealistic, but increasingly unrealistic).

This is as opposed to possible meanings of the phrase, like "impractical". It is probably theoretically possible to write something that really would have seven clear layers, though I have to hedge; a lot of really high-performance stuff is even fuzzier than the consumer stuff. The recent trend towards userland-level networking at the highest performance end pretty much collapses layer 3 and above into one application. But it would at least ship bytes from here to there, it's certainly not an impossible design. It just isn't the real one. (And I'd have grave concerns about its performance at the top end.)

I have to admit this is another trend in programming that I just Do Not Get. This bizarre insistence on taking some inappropriate model, then with malice aforethought deliberately squinting at things that manifestly do not fit into the model until your vision is so fuzzy that they do seem to fit together, then yelling at anyone who dares point out you've damn near closed your eyes and probably aren't seeing clearly. See also every web framework's desperate need to insist that they are MVC, even as the lines that must be drawn between the various components to show where the M, V, and C are wildly and drunkenly veer hither and yon in a terrifically convoluted manner, criss-crossing dozens of components, instead of simply explaining what they actually are. I just don't get it. Models aren't blueprints, let alone the very definition of virtue. If they don't work, dispose of them.

Post reply on HN