3 ms·
I agree with your main point - a decent working knowledge down-stack really helps with network stuffs. "nearly complete" strikes me as a whole lot of hubris th
by sophacles 4y ago
I agree with your main point - a decent working knowledge down-stack really helps with network stuffs.
"nearly complete" strikes me as a whole lot of hubris though - I've spent almost 20 years at a career that can be summed up as "weird stuff with packets on linux", and the only thing that I'm certain of is: every time I think I'm starting to get a handle on this networking thing, the universe shows me that my assessment of how much there is to know was off by at least an order of magnitude.
- macintux 4y agoI once interviewed someone with “Internet guru” on his résumé. I advised him there were only a handful of people I’d consider for that title.
- arpa 4y agoi have no idea how networks work, and i have been doing link splitting, bonding, packet scheduling and dabbling in bgp in 2004. The knowledge i've gained since helps immensely when debugging simple networks created by kube-proxy, but i am just petrified by amount of the iceberg that remains underneath. And to this day i'm slightly perplexed when udp socket operation in php throws `connection reset` exception.
- twic 4y agoPerhaps it can be "nearly complete" in a pareto sense. If you know the structure and semantics of IP, UDP, and TCP packets, including their most common few options, and DNS and HTTP, then you know <<10% of what there is to know about networks, but >90% of what you will see in a random pcap file, and >90% of what you know to solve a randomly selected networking problem.