21–30 of 30 posts
How is it considered appropriate to name this project Trotsky? Would they name a project Goebbels or Himmler?
This is hilarious and previous HN commenters are in sore need of political reeducation to free them from the bourgeois counter-revolutionary ideology clouding their senses of humor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hilarious and previous HN commenters are in sore need of political reeducation to free them from the bourgeois counter-revolutionary ideology clouding their senses of humor.
What? There must be some context I'm missing. What this on HN before, and you're responding to people in the last thread?
> In this paper, we try to reconcile these two perspectives by proposing a backwards-compatible architectural framework called Trotsky in which one can incrementally deploy radically new designs. We show how this can lead to a permanent revolution in Internet architecture by (i) easing the deployment of new architectures and (ii) allowing multiple coexisting architectures to be used simultaneously by applications In…
many people wearing che guevarra t-shirts are neither marxist nor especially bolshevik. but they are 'cool' and 'edgy' (supposedly).
The most frequently cited architectural flaw is the lack of a coherent security design: The success of IP is simplicity/general utility - the ability of the system to support different use cases as a packet-switched alternative to previously dominant circuit-switched telephony systems. This is precisely the capacity of the system to vary service types and levels based upon application requirements. Viewed in this lens, not having a 'coherent security design' is the core feature, not a bug.
many question whether the basic service model of the Internet (point-to-point packet delivery) is appropriate now that the current usage model is so heavily dominated by content-oriented activities: CDNs, content-addressable P2P networks (torrents), and multi-mirror package management databases are all excellent, broadly deployed counter-examples. The fact is, by normalizing packet-switching, IP has made bandwidth so cheap that inefficient distribution becomes a trivialized cost. Again, this is a core feature.
Between the name, the acronym TP, the tagline, and the fact that it was a paper co-authored by A Panda whilst presented in Beijing, all led me to assume it was an elaborate setup for a joke for at least half the paper.
Setting aside the cultural baggage of its authorship and nomenclature, from a purely objective standpoint I could not pass Introduction / Motivation without attempting to elucidate the objections I felt to its generalizations. The most frequently cited architectural flaw is the lack of a coherent security design : The success of IP is simplicity/general utility - the ability of the system to support different use cas…
The authors are not arguing against packet switching; they're questioning whether point-to-point still applies when a majority of the Internet is used for accessing content. CDNs aren't cheap, a content-centric network (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking) could substantially increase efficiency.
Why Trotsky? Because "permanent revolution"? sigh.
Setting aside the cultural baggage of its authorship and nomenclature, from a purely objective standpoint I could not pass Introduction / Motivation without attempting to elucidate the objections I felt to its generalizations. The most frequently cited architectural flaw is the lack of a coherent security design : The success of IP is simplicity/general utility - the ability of the system to support different use cas…
A system cannot switch the service type to "prevent DDoS from spoofed IP packets" though. The authors are not arguing against packet switching; they're questioning whether point-to-point still applies when a majority of the Internet is used for accessing content. CDNs aren't cheap, a content-centric network (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking ) could substantially increase efficiency.
For the NDN concept, again the whole point of IP is that you can implement it on the same base: Upgrade cost of network complexity: The Internet has smart edges ... and a simple core. Adding an new Internet service is just a matter of distributing an application ... Compare this to voice, where one has to upgrade the entire core. - RFC3439 (2002)