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

UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

networkworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#61

Post by ay »

darklajid wrote: post #56
ay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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,…

Wait. Germany's over 11% - I'm probably counted as one of them. My anecdote: I'm getting a DS-Lite connection here, that's forced on new customers for this (big) ISP. For month the (mandatory) hardware froze whenever the prefix changed or was reannounced. Basically a (silent) dead connection every 2-3 days, for a looong time. Known problem, nothing that can be done about. But .. that's the past and solved. Currently?…

No, only the live connections are counted - it's based on what address family content providers see in incoming connections.

So you are in the remaining 89% for now...

Try http://testipv6.com/helpdesk and mail me the result URL ?

EDIT: just realized we did talk some 249 days ago. Did you stay on the same ISP and DS-lite, and have an IPv6 prefix that does not allow you to ping6 towards ipv6.google.com ?

Time permitting I'll be happy to help debug this. Let's coordinate over email if you are interested, and the above assumption about your network setup is correct.

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#62

Post by dfox »

PinguTS wrote: post #18
nnain wrote: post #14

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…

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…

ATM failed to see the usage predicted by it's proponents in the 90's. The reason for that is that most of such statements about ATM as the new unified network for everything were mostly marketing bullshit disconnected from technical reality.

ATM is essentially circuit-switched technology lying somewhere between L1 and L2 that allows for efficient QoS for different services sharing same wire at the expense of ludicrous framing overhead and creating networks of such channels with reasonably simple and fast switches. The QoS part is mostly irrelevant today as faster interfaces made the problem significantly easier to solve so is the simple and fast switching. ATM's orientation towards end-to-end circuit-switched channels is what allows fast switches but also requires some external control-plane that builds and tears down the virtual channels, which I think is the major reason why ATM (and OSI in general) didn't catch on, on IP, you just send packet with destination address down the wire, with ATM you have to establish connection first (by using something essentially out-of-band and centralized).

In the end, ATM is widely used today, but mostly as pre-existing way of handling QoS and framing on top of some unrelated but relatively slow L1 technology (ATM is the first higher-level layer of both UMTS and xDSL)

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#63

Post by _cbdev »

runeks wrote: post #50
tgflynn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but I don't think comparing Internet adoption with IPv6 adoption is terribly valid. The first was a radically new technology and it took years for people to figure out how to best make use of it. IPv6 was supposed to be a purely technical improvement to deal with some deficiencies of IPv4, notably address space limitations. It should mostly concern only network and systems administrators and systems software dev…

> It should mostly concern only network and systems administrators and systems software developers and be largely transparent to end users. I'm no network engineer, but as I understand it, to support IPv6, companies need to replace their switches. I think it's fair to say that there are literally millions of switches that need replacing. We are talking billions of dollars in total investments. I really don't see how…

>companies need to replace their switches.

Actually, most Switches are just fine and don't need replacing. IPv6 is a Layer 3 Protocol, most "Normal" Switches operate on Layer 2 (The Ethernet Level, which stays the same and (in the best case) does neither know nor care what goes on in Layers above). These can stay and most wouldn't even need to be reconfigured.

As for Layer 3 Switches (The ones that do some amount of Routing, too), most "brand-name" Models purchased in the last 10 Years should support IPv6.

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#66

Post by kv85s »

I believe what they're proposing is largely the same, if not identical, to Content-Centric Networking from Xerox PARC.

The central idea is:

  Instead of asking one particular server for some content, just ask for the content by name.
Since the content may come from any handy server, it is up to the receiver to validate it is really the content he requested. Nothing about this implies the evil "centralized security model" people are going on about. Sure, some bad actor could weasel it in later, but it's not there now.

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#67

Post by kv85s »

allengeorge wrote: post #65

Isn't this identical in spirit to Content-Centric Networking (CCN) as espoused by Van Jacobsen? I distinctly remember watching his Google Tech Talk on the idea ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCZMoY3q2uM ) when I first joined AeroFS.

Yes! In fact, this talk first appeared on Google Video, before it all got shunted into youtube (which was an acquisition)

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#69

Post by legomylibrum »

colanderman wrote: post #68

Someone who knows more than me; does this intend to complement TCP, or replace TCP? If the latter, how would one use NDN to implement a system that naturally fits the "conversation" model of TCP, e.g. an MMORPG?

I don't think you would use TCP for an MMORPG; UDP is more common in games because a dropped frame here and there doesn't matter to most games, and it's worth the lower overhead.

Re: UCLA, Cisco and more join forces to replace TCP/IP

#70

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

erik123 wrote: post #10

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…

As usual, people ranting on HN without bothering to read what they're ranting about.

You're assuming centralization. All that's in the specs are slots for a locator and signature value. It's left up to the application to define trust semantics be it PKI, WoT or whatever.

http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-tlv/signature.html

Post reply on HN