7 Feb
2019
7 Feb
'19
6:07 p.m.
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.
$ReadingList++
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
modern software
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
Idiocracy.
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
are unreliable.
Since the discussion meandered to the distinction of
path
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
complications.
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
7 Feb
7 Feb
6:22 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
On Thursday, February 7, 2019, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
wrote:
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:
XTP was/is indeed very interesting. It was adopted by US Navy for SAFENET
and created by Greg Chesson who was active in the early UNIX community.
Not sure if we have him here on this list though.
--Andy
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.
$ReadingList++ 
6:33 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:22 PM Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019, Grant Taylor via TUHS
<tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
wrote:
Sadly, Greg Chesson passed away a couple of years ago after battling cancer
for some time.
- Dan C.
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:
XTP was/is indeed very interesting. It was adopted by US Navy for SAFENET
and created by Greg Chesson who was active in the early UNIX community.
Not sure if we have him here on this list though.
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.
$ReadingList++ 
13 Feb
13 Feb
3:20 a.m.
New subject: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
Sorry for the x-posting, but I'm not sure upon which list this topic
belongs... I think it's slowly drifting towards COFF, but Warren as usual
will have the final say :-)
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Dan Cross wrote:
Sadly, Greg Chesson passed away a couple of years ago
after battling
cancer for some time.
His birth date is not known, and I cannot find when he left us. But yes,
he was indeed one of the Greats.
-- Dave, the hysterical historian
7 Feb
7 Feb
6:50 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] OSI stack (Was: Posters)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 11:07:27AM -0700, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
On 02/06/2019 01:47 PM, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Greg Chesson was the guy behind XTP. I worked for him at SGI, he was a
hoot (lost him to cancer a while back). I think I've posted this before
but here he is not long before he died (he came up to bitch about kids
these days with their shiney frameworks and new fangled languages, what's
wrong with C?)
http://mcvoy.com/lm/xtp+excavator
He was an engineer to the core, he refused to take any info from me on how
to run the machine, just sat there and figured it out.
--lm
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.
$ReadingList++ 
7:28 p.m.
New subject: OSI stack
On 7 Feb 2019 11:07 -0700, from coff(a)minnie.tuhs.org (Grant Taylor via COFF):
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 are
unreliable.
While different, I think that the introduction of the more advanced
IPv6 address formats into DNS also qualifies. I don't recall off hand
if bit-string labels (which were used for reverse lookups) or the A6
RRtype (for forward lookups) was the more problematic one, but I do
recall that both had issues that made real-world adoption non-trivial
in the best of cases.
--
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael(a)kjorling.se
“The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person
is to think you know what you’re doing.” (Bret Victor)
8 Feb
8 Feb
2:41 a.m.
New subject: OSI stack
On 2/7/19 12:28 PM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
While different, I think that the introduction of the
more advanced
IPv6 address formats into DNS also qualifies. I don't recall off hand if
bit-string labels (which were used for reverse lookups) or the A6 RRtype
(for forward lookups) was the more problematic one, but I do recall that
both had issues that made real-world adoption non-trivial in the best
of cases.
Middle boxes that (mis)interpret DNS traffic are still a problem.
Admittedly less of a problem. I suspect even less after the DNS Flag
Day we recently had.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
1897
days inactive
1903
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Andy Kosela -
Dan Cross -
Dave Horsfall -
Grant Taylor -
Larry McVoy -
Michael Kjörling