Seeing as how this is diverging from TUHS, I'd encourage replies to the
COFF copy that I'm CCing.
On 02/06/2019 01:47 PM, Kevin Bowling wrote:
There were protocols that fit better in the era like
DeltaT with a
simpler state machine and connection handling. Then there was a mad
dash of protocol development in the mid to late ‘80s that were measured
by various metrics to outperform TCP in practical and theoretical
space. Some of these seemed quite nice like XTP and are still in use in
niche defense applications.
Positive, rather than negative acknowledgement has
aged well as
computers got more powerful (the sender can pretty well predict loss
when it hasn't gotten an ACK back and opportunistically retransmit).
But RF people do weird things that violate end to end principle on cable
modems and radios to try and minimize transmissions.
Would you care to elaborate?
One thing I think that is missing in my contemporary
developers is a willingness to dig down and solve problems at the right
level. People do clownish things like write overlay filesystems in
garbage collected languages. Google's QUIC is a fine example of
foolishness. I am mortified that is genuinely being considered for the
HTTP 3 standard. But I guess we've entered the era where enough people
have retired that the lower layers are approached with mysticism and
deemed unable and unsuitable to change. So the layering will continue
until eventually things topple over like the garbage pile in the movie
I thought one of the reasons that QUIC was UDP based instead of it's own
transport protocol was because history has shown that the possibility
and openness of networking is not sufficient to encourage the adoption
of newer technologies. Specifically the long tail of history / legacy
has hindered the introduction of a new transport protocol. I thought I
remembered hearing that Google wanted to do a new transport protocol,
but they thought that too many things would block it thus slowing down
it's deployment. Conversely putting QUIC on top of UDP was a minor
compromise that allowed the benefits to be adopted sooner.
Perhaps I'm misremembering. I did a quick 45 second search and couldn't
find any supporting evidence.
The only thing that comes to mind is IPsec's ESP(50) and AH(51) which—as
I understand it—are filtered too frequently because they aren't ICMP(1),
TCP(6), or UDP(17). Too many firewalls interfere to the point that they
Since the discussion meandered to the distinction of
selection/routing.. for provider level networks, label switching to this
day makes a lot more sense IMO.. figure out a path virtual circuit that
can cut through each hop with a small flow table instead of trying to
coagulate, propagate routes from a massive address space that has to fit
in an expensive CAM and buffer and forward packets at each hop.
I think label switching has it's advantages. I think it also has some
I feel like ATM, Frame Relay, and MPLS are all forms of label switching.
Conceptually they all operate based on a per-programed path.
Grant. . . .
unix || die