From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 26563 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2022 00:44:33 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 27 Jun 2022 00:44:33 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF42940C63; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:43:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE30F40C4C for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:43:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 84ABA18C07B; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:43:49 -0400 (EDT) To: tuhs@tuhs.org Message-Id: <20220627004349.84ABA18C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:43:49 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Message-ID-Hash: WQLERMMVYXHUZNOH3J6UCNVNI6JXAKBW X-Message-ID-Hash: WQLERMMVYXHUZNOH3J6UCNVNI6JXAKBW X-MailFrom: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Research Datakit notes List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Just as the topic of TUHS isn't 'how _I_ could/would build a _better_ OS', but 'history of the OS that was _actually built_' (something that many posters here seem to lose track of, to the my great irritation), so too the topic isn't 'how to build a better network' - or actually, anything network-centric. I'll make a few comments on a couple of things, though. > From: steve jenkin > packet switching won over Virtual Circuits in the now distant past but > in small, local and un-congested networks without reliability > constraints, any solution can look good. ... Packet switching > hasn't scaled well to Global size, at least IMHO. The internetworking architecture, circa 1978, has not scaled as well as would have been optimal, for a number of reasons, among them: - pure scaling effects (e.g. algorithms won't scale up; subsystems which handle several different needs will often need to be separated out at a larger scale; etc) - inherent lack of hindsight (unknown unknowns, to use Rumsfeld's phrase; some things you only learn in hindsight) - insufficiently detailed knowledge of complete requirements for a global-scale network (including O+M, eventual business model, etc) - limited personnel resources at the time (some things we _knew_ were going to be a problem we had to ignore because we didn't have people to throw at the problem, then and there) - rapid technological innovation (and nobody's crystal ball is 100% perfect) It has been possible to fix some aspects of the ca. 1978 system - e.g. the addition of DNS, which I think has worked _reasonably_ well - but in other areas, changes weren't really adequate, often because they were constrained by things like upward compatibility requirements (e.g. BGP, which, among numerous other issues, had to live with existing IP addressing). Having said all that, I think your assertion that virtual circuits would have worked better in a global-scale network is questionable. The whole point of networks which use unreliable datagrams as a fundamental building block is that by moving a lot of functionality into the edge nodes, it makes the switches a lot simpler. Contemporary core routers may be complex - but they would be much worse if the network used virtual circuits. Something I suspect you may be unaware of is that most of the people who devised the unreliable datagram approach of the internetworking architecture _had experience with an actual moderately-sized, operational virtual circuit network_ - the ARPANET. (Yes, it was basically a VC network. Look at things like RFNMs, links {the specific ARPANET mechanism referred to by this term, not the general concept}, etc.) So they _knew_ what a VC network would involve. So, think about the 'core routers' in a network which used VC's. I guess a typical core router tese days uses a couple of OC768 links. Assume an average packet size of 100 bytes (probably roughly accurate, with the bimodal distribution between data and acks). With 4 OC768's, that's 4*38.5G/800 = ~155M packets/second. I'm not sure of the average TCP connection length in packets these days, but assume it's 100 packets or so (that's a 100KB Web object). That's still roughly _1 million cicuit setups per second_. If the answer is 'oh, we'll use aggregation so core routers don't see individual connections - or their setup/tear-down' - well, the same can be done with a datagram system; that's what MPLS does. Work through the details - VCs were not preferred, for good reasons. > Ethernet only became a viable LAN technology with advent of Twisted > pair: point to point + Switches. It's really irritating that a lot of things labelled 'Ethernet' these days _aren't_ _real_ Ethernet (i.e. a common broadcast bus allocated via CSMA-CD). They use the same _packet format_ as Ethernet (especially the 48-bit globally-unique address, which can usefully be blown into things at manufacture time), but it's not Ethernet. In some cases, they also retain the host interface<->network physical interface - but the thing on the other side of the interface is totally different (such as the hub-based systems commmon now - as you indicate, it's a bunch of small datagram packet switches plugged together with point-point links). Interfaces are forever; like the screw in light-bulb. These days, it's likely an LED bulb on one side, powered by a reactor on the other - two technologies which were unforseen (and unforseeable) when the interface was defined, well over 100 years ago. Noel