3 ms·
> Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated. We're slowly reinventing OSI, one step at a time: OSI had multiple sessio
by Parodper 3mo ago
> Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated.
We're slowly reinventing OSI, one step at a time: OSI had multiple sessions per transport connection (QUIC), 20 byte addresses (IPv6) and a directory system with public-key infrastructure (DANE, vCard, SSHFP, etc).
It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.
- throw0101d 3mo ago> It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed. See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 The document explains why SIPP was chosen (with the tweak of 128-bit addresses instead of 64).
- Parodper 2mo agoVery interesting, thanks. I like they even admit their own bias, that the main reason was that they didn't want another's protocol; except for the word alignment, all the other issues are solvable.