4 ms·
He's saying it will replace the need to replace IPv4 with IPv6, not that it will replace TCP/IP.
by msnodderly 13y ago
He's saying it will replace the need to replace IPv4 with IPv6, not that it will replace TCP/IP.
- tptacek 13y agoActually, I'm saying we should replace IP, in the same way that IP "replaced" X.25 (if you want to call Frame Relay the successor X.25) by relegating it to a layer 2 connectivity technology. I'm saying it would be great if all web pages were delivered over an overlay protocol running on top of some TCP friendly transport provided by an overlay; a "peer to peer" routing system like Skype. The simplest way to describe the architecture I'm talking about is, "what if you made IRC a modern, fully routed binary connectivity fabric, then tunnelled the Internet over it?"
- sliverstorm 13y agoTCP/IP is peer to peer, and IRC is built on top of TCP/IP. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your proposal, but it seems like what you want to do is what we already have.
- tptacek 13y agoYes, you're misunderstanding, because I am not being clear. I'm not saying we get rid of IP (I'm not talking about TCP at all, for what it's worth). I'm saying, we stop trying to make IP better, accept it for what it is, and building something better ON TOP OF IT.
- sliverstorm 13y agoBut why not do both? Honest question?
- tptacek 13y agoBecause IPv6 is extremely expensive. But don't get me wrong: I'm not on a crusade to get rid of IPv6, and overlays work just fine on IPv6. I'm just on a crusade to put it into context.
- sliverstorm 13y agoThanks for clarifying. You should have started out with that.
- tptacek 13y agoI agree; I wanted to avoid repeating previous comments from older threads, but that was a bad call.