People are trying for almost 15 years to replace IPv4. That's almost impossible, 96% of the traffic worldwide is still IPv4.
This project is dead on arrival.
UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
21–30 of 86 posts
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#22In 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…
That is why I'm of the mind that both canonical identity and permission need to be managed in a globally distributed fashion with blockchain. In order to facilitate the level of data transfer that would need to happen between devices to accommodate the distribution of global scale permission data, networking does need to change fundamentally.
I envision my fridge having a permission entry that neighbor can use my car tomorrow, and also that a person I will never meet has purchased a ticket for a flight to Argentina next week. That data is constantly being shared on a mesh network with my car and everybody else's I drive down the road next to, across all of my devices and those of every other participant. No government or corporation should be able to have the whole set of data, and none of it should be able to have a very long half-life.
The only way we can move forward to a truly connected version of the future is with trust, and the only way to have a truly trusted security model is to have it be globally distributed. NDN may or may not be the next version of networking to support it, but I'm rather confident that TCP/IP isn't going to be the way we get there.
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#23One 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…
That is not right, that ATM failed to see real world usage. 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 Nex…
Not just German Telekom, several other operators around the globe deployed ATM in the 90s for ISDN services. However, just after a few years, most companies started dropping ATM in favour of IP based networks. By "it failed to see real world usage", I meant, it failed to sustain itself in real world.
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#24I 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…
> 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 deployed. 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...
That is absolutely true but the main driver behind the replacement is the increased address space. None of the other changes seems to have been a driver at all.
So as far as the consumers go IPv4 is 'good enough' and if and when IPv6 will finally take over it will remain the de-facto world wide networking protocol used to power the internet for a very very long time.
Cisco attempting to drive a wedge between IPv4 and IPv6 in the midst of this (very very slow) transition seems like a very strange move to me, almost certainly bound to fail or in the end not replacing IPv4/IPv6 but maybe ending up as a transport layer underneath it (killing most of the advantages it would offer in the process).
And that's besides trying to replace TCP which would require re-writing/adapting of virtually every computer program active on the net today.
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#25One 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…
"Even IPv6 hasn't picked up" - this needs correction.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
You can notice that 9% of the internet users in the US are IPv6-enabled. Germany is over 11%. Belgium is almost 30% (of course due to smaller population it's less in absolute host count).
How many IPv6 users this is in millions, is an exercise left for the reader.
The things are moving very very fast - lots of large SPs have bumped the values within this year from low-mid single digits to nontrivial double-digits, and lots more are in the pipe.
All major CDNs support it, helping IPv6-enable thousands of sites that don't run IPv4 on the server itself. I'm saddened by the fact that HN site, being Cloudflare customer, did not flip the switch - there's really zero excuses today. (http://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-n...)
(On a side note, there are today millions of users not worrying to have any IPv4 at all - on T-Mobile's network. See: https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/464xlat-apricot-2014_13...)
Here's another data point, from my home gateway (I'm in the remaining 70% of folks in Belgium who yet don't have IPv6 so I am using Hurricane Electric tunnel - and the Vlan50 is the IPv4-only internet connection, so that counter shows IPv4 user traffic + IPv4 tunnel traffic - so you can count it as "aggregate").
ay-home#sh int Tunnel0 | inc packets|escr
Description: Hurricane Electric -- Paris
5 minute input rate 5000 bits/sec, 6 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 5000 bits/sec, 3 packets/sec
171400464 packets input, 193001468663 bytes, 0 no buffer
90187695 packets output, 13837665814 bytes, 0 underruns
ay-home#sh int Vlan50 | inc packets|escr
Description: Outside - internet-facing
5 minute input rate 143000 bits/sec, 24 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 34000 bits/sec, 25 packets/sec
618491041 packets input, 607147678054 bytes, 38 no buffer
390716032 packets output, 83476555174 bytes, 0 underruns
ay-home#
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#26In 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…
That is why I'm of the mind that both canonical identity and permission need to be managed in a globally distributed fashion with blockchain. In order to facilitate the level of data transfer that would need to happen between devices to accommodate the distribution of global scale permission data, networking does need to change fundamentally. I envision my fridge having a permission entry that neighbor can use my car…
As much as I like the idea that all communications should be confidential, your response doesn't refute the original poster's point, which is that any architecture that is impervious to eavesdropping would not be adopted by parties who want to impose their desire to eavesdrop on it, which is (according to the original poster) 95% of the world population (and their governments). (citation needed)
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 deployed. 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...
That is absolutely true but the main driver behind the replacement is the increased address space. None of the other changes seems to have been a driver at all. So as far as the consumers go IPv4 is 'good enough' and if and when IPv6 will finally take over it will remain the de-facto world wide networking protocol used to power the internet for a very very long time. Cisco attempting to drive a wedge between IPv4 and…
I don't know that they're trying to drive a wedge between IPv4 and IPv6. I would think that even NDN's supporters see it as a very long-term, post-IPv6 development.
I am surprised however to see Cisco supporting this. It's one thing to have some academic networking specialists writing papers about NDN, but for a major corporation to devote resources to a 10+ year development project with an unproven architectural basis strikes me as odd.
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#28One 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…
"Even IPv6 hasn't picked up" - this needs correction. http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ You can notice that 9% of the internet users in the US are IPv6-enabled. Germany is over 11%. Belgium is almost 30% (of course due to smaller population it's less in absolute host count). How many IPv6 users this is in millions,…
Yes but <20% adoption 18 years after the protocol was designed seems a bit slow, especially given the pace of overall technological change in this century.
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#29I hope keeping it all patent free / disarmament patent style is a requirement for participation.
Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP
#30In 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…
I think this is the first time I've heard of NDN, and I've only spent a short while reading about it. My first impression is:
1) It involves addressing chunks of data rather than hosts that hold those chunks. Somewhat like using URLs at the network level. So instead of IP/HTTPS where the network learns of host communications without learning of specific data exchanges, NPN would reveal those specific data exchanges to the network.
2) The mandatory "signature, coupled with data publisher information, enables determination of data provenance..." aspect would cut both ways. For we would be data consumers in some contexts and data producers in other contexts.
I hope I read something to dispel my concern, but I worry about increased metadata exposures and reduced ability to achieve beneficial levels of privacy/anonymity.