<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [e2e] end of interest</title></head><body>
<div>At 10:56 -0400 2008/04/20, Noel Chiappa wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> > From: John Day
<day@std.com><br>
<br>
> Well this wasn't suppose to be a screed, but
it seems to have turned<br>
> into one! Ooops.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Nah, good stuff.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thank you.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
However, as someone who is fairly dedicated to the concept of
"look for<br>
fundamentals, the invariants and be damned where it led", and who
has also<br>
tried to get some of that thinking into the network, let me offer you
a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>couple of decades worth of perspective
from that particular seat.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I was making a different point. There is a difference
between doing networking research and doing work engineering the
Internet. Today there seems to be only engineering the Internet,
not much if any research on networking. There are many kinds
internet-like networks possible. The Internet is just the one we
kludged up some years back.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>We need to have some idea of the "answer" is regardless
of whether the Internet ever reaches it. To do otherwise is, in
effect, wandering lost in the woods. And as everyone knows, if
you are lost in the woods, it is better to stay put and let rescuers
come to you. It is very unlikely that you will FIND your way
out.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
It's damned hard.<br>
<br>
There are in fact pretty good reasons for this. The old line about
"updating<br>
the Wright flyer into a 747 - while it's flying" captures a lot
of it.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>One historical note of slight relevance: the methods of the
Wright flyer do not serve as a basis for the 747, as much as the
Curtiss flyer does.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
An unfinished note of mine (is there any other kind? :-) captures a
slightly<br>
different take on it, which is that communication networks have a
property<br>
which is not shared by editors, operating systems, etc, etc. That is
that if<br>
you come up with the world's greatest new editor, if you get a few
people to<br>
adopt it, they will love it, and more will join in, so eventually you
get to,<br>
say, 2% market share, and that works just fine. Invent a new
communication<br>
system, and get 2% of the market to use it, and ... very shortly you
will<br>
have 0%. The reason is obvious: the point of communication systems is
to<br>
communicate, and if you limit yourself to a small group of
potential<br>
communicatees, your communication system doesn't have lot of
perceived/actual<br>
value. A plain telephone that can reach everyone is a heck of a lot
more<br>
valuable than a videophone that can reach 17 people.<br>
<br>
Which dumps us back into the Wright-flyer -> 747 problem ... which
is not an<br>
easy one. Electric outlet sockets, light-bulb sockets, etc look much
the same<br>
as they did a century ago - because interoperability with installed
base is<br>
giant millstone.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>All of these examples represent an end. I for one do not
believe we are anywhere near such an end. We haven't even begun
to explore truly distributed systems, regardless of that the poor
peer-to-peer [sic] advocates may think. The current architecture
makes it very difficult to even contemplate such applications.
There is much more that can be done, once we get<i> around</i> this
particular millstone.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
However, all is not lost.<br>
<br>
<br>
I think for a long time there have been understandable and rational
reasons<br>
people were content to build more fabric wing. To start with, as the
network<br>
grew, people were so ass-deep in alligators they couldn't take the
time to do<br>
anything but build more fabric wing as fast as the sewing machines
could crank<br>
it out. Then we went through a deep cutback where there wasn't any
money to do<br>
anything anyway.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>The engineers were, but they weren't the ones who should have
been clearing brush. There were lots of people working on this
and not everyone had to be ass-deep in alligators. We have known
what the fundamental issues were for 30 years. But 2nd
generation effect took over.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The funny thing is that most of what needed to be done required
little, if any, money. It did require some hard thinking, but of
course spending money to build things is always more fun than hard
thinking.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
However, I think that as the field has matured, and people have
enough<br>
personal history in it to internalize some of these points, there is
an<br>
increasing understanding out there of some of the things you're
talking about,<br>
like:<br>
<br>
> We take a 30 year old demo, patch and patch
it, relying on Moore's Law<br>
> to save us from the hard problems.<br>
> ...<br>
> Sure there was some solid engineering and with
Moore's Law we have<br>
> built something that the world has found
amazing.<br>
> ...<br>
> What have we done to consolidate, make it
simpler? Get at the<br>
> fundamentals. Ensure this thing is on a solid
footing now that the<br>
> world relies on it.<br>
<br>
And, moreover, I think (or perhaps this is just a hope that my desire
is<br>
turning into a perception) that there's a growing appreciation of
the<br>
*long-term value* of spending a little more resources now, to build
something<br>
(and I'm talking about architecture here, not hardware) that has a
little</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>more flexibility and capability - and
hence *durability*.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Frankly, until there is a group of people who see the Internet as
we saw the phone company it won't happen. Too many people are
too worried about protecting their legacy than furthering the
understanding. To much calling for a revolution as long as you
don't change what they did. (Some revolution.) Until they
really see the fundamental flaws that are holding them back, it won't
happen. (In fact it doesn't speak well for them that they
haven't seen them already. They are so blatant!)</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Of course, we still have to make the numbers add up (both $ and
engineering),<br>
but I think there's more interest now in 'doing the right thing'.
Enough more<br>
to make it happen? Well, we'll see. But for those who are interested,
I have</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>a nice shiny-new metal wing concept for
you....</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Which is? </div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
> The problem has been with academic research
that seems to have gotten<br>
> the idea that university research is low risk
angel funding .. Guys, it<br>
> is time that some of got back to doing real
research, not just hot<br>
> topics.<br>
<br>
Indeed. Some of the research I read about sure seems a lot like
"how to build</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>a better fabric wing with the latest
hot-glue technology".</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Yea, I am afraid there needs to be lessons in how to clean a
slate. ;-) They sure are coming out with a lot of dust on
them.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Take care,</div>
<div>John</div>
</body>
</html>