Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9
[#] Wed Sep 06 2017 13:09:46 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually you have a port on an OLT running at 622 Mbps downstream, 155 Mbps upstream, shared by up to 32 subscribers using optical splitters.  At least that's how it is on my circuit which is wired for BPON.  Some of them are getting upgraded to GPON which is 2.4 Gbps downstream, 1.2 Gbps upstream, shared by up to 64 subscribers using optical splitters, and the wire protocol is Ethernet instead of ATM.  (Telcos took a long time to realize that no one cares about ATM anymore except for them.)

 



[#] Sun Feb 25 2018 17:23:33 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

When IPv6 first started showing up, and was slow to be deployed, I often said that they should have just made IP addresses variable-length, and simply stick with 32-bit addresses until we got to a point where everyone was upgraded to new software.  Then we could start using longer addresses.  I envisioned an Internet where addresses were hierarchial, so if for example you had an address 169.254.0.1, you would automatically be routed addresses below it, such as 169.254.0.1.1, 169.254.0.1.2, 169.254.0.1.3, etc, and then the node at 169.254.0.1.3 would also automatically become the router for 169.254.0.1.3.1, 169.254.0.0.3.2, etc.

Yes, I am smarter than the entire IETF, but we're stuck with their design now.

Well, it turns out that I'm not the only one who thought this way.  Here's an undated piece [ http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/book3.html ] from none other than J. Noel Chiappa, who proposed pretty much exactly the same thing.  I don't know when he wrote this, because very little of the material on his web site is dated, but it's a good bit of thinking.  SNMP and LDAP use hierarchies like this, with absolutely smashing success: no one person or organization ever needs to be assigned more than one node in the tree, because they can just keep carving it up forever.

(For those who don't know who J. Noel Chiappa is -- he is one of the great unsung pioneers of the Internet.  He invented the router.)



[#] Tue Apr 17 2018 19:39:57 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I'm going to Cisco Live this year. Should be fun. Hopefully I can meet the right people and learn the right technologies to build a way for me to personally control the entire Internet. Nobody on the planet is more deserving of that privilege than I am.

It's been a long time since I've been to an industry conference. I'm excited.

[#] Mon Apr 23 2018 13:13:23 EDT from kc5tja @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I wish you the best of luck!

(slinks off to invent a new internetwork of his own....)

[#] Mon May 14 2018 11:44:33 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Banyan Vines? XNS? Apollo Domain? DECnet? AppleTalk? SNA? Why should IP get the global network all to itself?

[#] Mon May 14 2018 14:06:36 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Heh... IPX/SPX...

[#] Wed May 16 2018 13:16:35 EDT from kc5tja @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If I were serious about that, I'd be advocating for content-addressed or data-driven networking (whatever that thing Van Jacobson was working on is called today).

[#] Wed May 16 2018 13:50:57 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Today's titans wouldn't build the Internet the way it exists today; they'd definitely build it in a way that is more centrally controllable. We got lucky with this one.

[#] Thu May 17 2018 14:40:21 EDT from kc5tja @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm pretty confused by this. Today's Internet is wrapped up tighter than a canoli, and while it's possible to have toy or island networks of your own, they don't make a dent in the grand scheme of connectivity. Named Data Networking seems no more nor no less centralized than IP, but your response seems to suggest it's more controllable. Am I misunderstanding something?

[#] Fri May 18 2018 13:30:51 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm thinking that if the People Who Wield Too Much Power were designing the Internet today, they'd build it with supervision built into the network layer, like Fibre Channel. The closest they can get to supervision today is by wielding power over DNS, and of course by eavesdropping. The PWWTMP wouldn't have built an Internet that "interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- they would have built an Internet that could force censorship down the entire stack, across the entire network, at the touch of a button. It would be hierarchial, not distributed.

One could argue that the reason the Internet became not only popular, but pervasive, is because it was *not* designed this way.. The hierarchial supervised network is, without question, what people like Al Gore had in mind when they declared that they wanted to build an "information superhighway". Later they took credit for the Internet, but they did not build the Internet.

[#] Mon May 21 2018 08:14:51 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Heh... if I have the right memory of this, the DoD's involvement nearly forced the internet to be chaotic in this way, to address a concern that it be capable of withstanding a nuclear blast.

[#] Wed Jun 06 2018 11:36:33 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

...which makes it very easy to use tactical localized blasts to take out just the parts of the Internet which are problematic.

[#] Tue Aug 21 2018 16:31:51 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I wrote on my whiteboard in red ink: "NCP to IP conversion - finish by 1983-jan-01"

Let's see who notices.

[#] Tue Aug 21 2018 17:50:26 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

People might notice but not say anything.



[#] Tue Aug 21 2018 21:09:42 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

How many people today know anything about arpa or IMP's?

[#] Wed Aug 22 2018 15:24:17 EDT from winzlo @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Those of us that used to love the joys of early DNS configurations...

zzzz.yyyy.xxxx.in-addr.arpa


And then chose to investigate why we had to use that reference, since we were civilians. :)

[#] Fri Aug 24 2018 16:46:30 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well yes, the history of the ARPAnet is fairly well documented, and if you dig enough, you'll learn that they had a network-wide "flag day" on 1983-jan-01 where the whole network switched its layer 3 protocol from NCP to IP.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find much documentation regarding what NCP actually looked like. I know the addresses were smaller, that's about it.

[#] Mon Aug 27 2018 10:15:24 EDT from winzlo @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I wonder if Tom Jennings and the other minds around FIDOnet were modeling their own limited addressing after that inadvertedly - i.e. 1:282/101

[#] Wed Aug 29 2018 23:25:27 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I still kinda miss having a bang path for email.  I imagine less spam would result if we went back to using that routing.



[#] Thu Aug 30 2018 11:12:23 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Having a bang path for email requires that everyone has to be an open relay.
So I doubt the spam level would change to anything other than MUCH more.

Go to page: First ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9