11–20 of 86 posts
I wonder if it's just my naiveté however it sounds like this is more likely to produce an X400 than an SMTP. The vision seems pretty grand and all encompassing wholesale replacement of the entire networking stack, rather than small and easy to implement iterative approach. It seems that the biggest thing the TCP/IP folks got 'wrong' was the 32 bit address space, and even that small change is taking forever to be depl…
Basically baking a URI into the low-level protocols?
So if I've understood this correctly, NDN works be giving each piece of content a unique address, instead of stopping at the host? Basically baking a URI into the low-level protocols?
That may make sense for content that has few sources and many users, like video (although I think CDN's mostly already solve this problem).
I don't think it makes much sense for interactive data and hence I don't think it's a good basis for implementing all networking protocols.
Along the way many developments happened. People learned to live and work with IPv4. Even IPv6 hasn't picked up despite solving some important problems. So when it comes to updating the core networking infrastructure, I don't think TCP/IP is replaceable. It just works very well now -- you can have real time chats, high throughput data lines, has time-tested code libraries, there's vast amounts of knowledge so you can build apps fast and all that.
As I understand, what this 'Named Data Networking' technology is proposing is to replace IP addressing scheme with Names. I'm not sure if the whole internet backbone infrastructure would change it's networking strategy now.
TCP/IP addressing format is very structured and that's its strength. IMHO that's actually how communication should take place; not with names that can have high-variation in format.
I wonder if it's just my naiveté however it sounds like this is more likely to produce an X400 than an SMTP. The vision seems pretty grand and all encompassing wholesale replacement of the entire networking stack, rather than small and easy to implement iterative approach. It seems that the biggest thing the TCP/IP folks got 'wrong' was the 32 bit address space, and even that small change is taking forever to be depl…
In NDN, all data is signed by data producers and verified by the consumers, and the data name provides essential context for security. Centralizing the concept of security in the network's architecture will create an intractable problem. Certain parties will still want to impose their desire to be able to eavesdrop on the data. Therefore, there cannot be any real security in such centralized design for security. The…
Maybe the point you're making is exemplified by the news item concerning a security breach that was detected after going on for 13 years. (http://cybertinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/HARKONNEN-O...)
The part that got my attention was the criminals having fooled users into revealing passwords using certificates purchased from CAs (at a total cost of $150,000).
That seems to mean the current CA system is broken. It's not a big surprise that a centralized security concept is in NDN--Verisign is one of its main supporters.
> more secure If something is already secure, how can you make it moreso ? What they mean is "less insecure".
One of the earliest attempts to replace the the TCP/IP model (or rather the lower layers of the ISO-OSI model) was the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM). Despite being a well-intentioned idea, it failed to see real world usage because of the complexity. Along the way many developments happened. People learned to live and work with IPv4. Even IPv6 hasn't picked up despite solving some important problems. So when it com…
ATM was the backbone of the German infrastructure run mainly by German Telekom for years. It provided a very good service especially for telephony (ISDN). Germany basically had the best telephony network in the world.
But the problem is, that IP does not fit with the 55ms time slot in ATM. That is the why all the backbones are replaced with the so-called Next Generation Networks (NGN), which basically is pure IP traffic and everything will be on top of IP, not anymore in parallel to IP. That basically means, moving to VoIP in the backbone and consequently also for the consumer end.
> more secure If something is already secure, how can you make it moreso ? What they mean is "less insecure".
Something can be secure enough that the computational power required to break it is probably not available to various actors up to and perhaps including nation-states (e.g. RSA), yet still well short of the "requires more energy to compute than is available in the visible universe" benchmark (e.g. AES, probably). Yet both could still be regarded as "secure".
I wonder if it's just my naiveté however it sounds like this is more likely to produce an X400 than an SMTP. The vision seems pretty grand and all encompassing wholesale replacement of the entire networking stack, rather than small and easy to implement iterative approach. It seems that the biggest thing the TCP/IP folks got 'wrong' was the 32 bit address space, and even that small change is taking forever to be depl…
i guess you are alluding to ipv6 here. and imho, ipv6 provides quite a large number of changes from vanilla ipv4. it is not just a much larger address space...