4 ms·
Part of the difficulty here - is you're not just upgrading the whole stack, you're instead layering on whatever stack is already there - its a needed part of de
by Aloha 9y ago
Part of the difficulty here - is you're not just upgrading the whole stack, you're instead layering on whatever stack is already there - its a needed part of deploying any new technology without replacing everything from the basement up. I'm not sure what this guy would do instead however - as someone with a decent networking background, I got completely lost in the end.
- ktRolster 9y agoMaybe you should read it again and let us know which of those options it is.
- loeg 9y agoThe author has a verbose writing style, and may not be a genius, but they are clearly familiar with networking protocols and do a good job explaining the general scene and history.
- Aloha 9y agoI just disagree with some of his premise - I don't think its feasible to get away from any and all layer two broadcast messages - even limiting yourself to IPv6 Mulitcast still leaves you with some pseudo-broadcast messages for either housekeeping or auto-discovery purposes - its part of what makes IP based networking in general work - and I'm talking services that run at layer four - that rely on that primitive to exist to make certain functionality happen. Routing still adds complexity, and I see no way for it to not add complexity - he talks about each switch being a router for example - you then need a way to determine where a particular subnet you're trying to get to lies - which means a routing able (akin to a mac address table, but for prefix), and some way to feret out which interface a particular device lies (akin to arp, but instead searching for a prefix to route to) - in the end, you end up with the same primitives and complexity, but you've just moved it up a layer in the stack - which does nothing to get rid of complexity - it just adds to it. IP networks are often a tree in organizations - ethernet is often deployed with different topologies, relying to spanning-tree to give you more redundancy without extra configuration (at the expense of some delay on re-convergence) I think also that so long as we're dragging along the legacies of the disparate layer one technologies (which in any case, would not and could not go away) - we're kinda stuck with what we have.
- apenwarr 9y agoThe point is that actually IPv6 already includes all the complexity you're talking about: complicated multicast to replace complicated broadcast, complicated routing to replace complicated bridging. The underlying problem with IPv6 is that it includes all this complexity because they expected to have to replace layer 2 bridging. But this never happened, so now we have all those features twice, which is worse.
- bewo001 9y agoWell he doesn't seem to be aware of all the ID/Locator split discussions in the IETF (see HIP, LISP, ILNP). Mobile QUIC will give Google even more insight about how users move from network to network.. Mobile IP didn't fail because the latency was too bad. It failed because there was financially viable use case. The mobile providers wanted a purely network-based roaming solution to control the billing model. WiFi vendors couldn't count on OS support of mobile IP, so they went for L2 solutions. Because there were L2 solutions, the OS vendors didn't bother to implement mobile IP.
- laythea 9y agoI agree. A good read.