[e2e] Internet "architecture"
Jon Crowcroft
Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sat Apr 13 04:29:09 PDT 2013
so the dogma here was that the business of manageing the net was just
another distributed system (see the Cambridge Distributed System)
wherre name services, router services, security services were
implemented in exactly the same way as any other distributred system
(file systems, transaction services, distributed computation tools)...
but the control plane model of the net arrived in internet-land some
time back - for example simon crosby took ideas (this was around the
time when everyone was trying to do IP over ATM, which morphed into
mpls) from "switchlet" territory with remote computation as
controlplanestechnology...other people, e.g. ipsilon, also took the
seperation of concerns that are
forwarding packets as fast as you can,
from
working out where they should and shouldn't go
and put them on different boxes, originally to be coordinated via the
Generic Switch Management Protocol
later re-discoverd as Software Definted Networkign and Openflow...
plus ca change...
In missive <a062408a1cd8ddf0a5bcd@[10.0.1.3]>, John Day typed:
>>The whole distinction of data plane and control plane arises with
>>ISDN. It is a CCITT concept and was never used to describe anything
>>Internet related, either in the US or Europe. Such distinctions only
>>make sense in the beads-on-a-string models of the ITU. Routing,
>>ICMP, DHCP, etc. type functions were characterized as layer
>>management, which can exist to greater or lesser degree in all layers
>>and must be within the layer owing to the different scopes of the
>>layers.
>>
>>Take care,
>>John Day
>>
>>>
>>>the post-hoc rationalisation phrase is way too glib....certainly not
>>>intended to be rude to people that created this cool stuff we all
>>>use - in fact i was conflating three things
>>>
>>>1. a bunch of work fairly recently on optimal protocols and narrow
>>>waist of the hour glass...
>>>2. the ordering of constrints on the design of the internet
>>>protocols (as per dave clarks 88 paper)
>>>and
>>>3. the apparent simplicity of IP - my missing point was that the
>>>complexity pops out somewhere, and that place is in the control
>>>plane....as we've since disovered...
>>>
>>>of course, there were people that ran dynamic distributed routing
>>>for VC networks (X.25 for example - we had switches in the JANET
>>>network that did this) so they were even more complex in both data
>>>and control plane (what with crankback etc etc:)
>>>
>>>so yes, a bit glib really...sorry
>>>
>>>normal service will be resumed as soon as I get my IPTV QoS back :)
>>>
>>>j.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Fred Baker (fred)
>>><<mailto:fred at cisco.com>fred at cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'd suggest running the assertion by Vint. I made a similar
>>>assertion in a document not too long ago, which I ran by him for
>>>comment, and he told me I was flatly wrong. Yes, the circuit switch
>>>folks were using the term "catenet" to refer to networks that
>>>interoperated through translation, such as frame relay/ATM
>>>interoperation, he asserted, but at least some (he?) was using the
>>>term "Internet" as early as the mid 1970's.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Dave Crocker
>>><<mailto:dhc2 at dcrocker.net>dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a risky query. There have been previous threads about
>>>>such things as the "start" of the Internet. Instead, I want to ask
>>>>about the "architecture" of the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a comment that I sent earlier today, to a non-technical
>>>>person who is aware of the overall Internet timeline, but I believe
>>>>does not understand what is distinctive about Internet
>>>>'architecture'. I'm curious about reactions on this list, and any
>>>>possible improvements -- including complete replacement -- but more
>>>>importantly I'm interested in filling in the details:
>>> >
>>>> The original use of the term Internet was to describe a
>>>>distinctive technical design for a distributed, scalable data
>>>>exchange fabric. Its design characteristics differ dramatically
>>>>from those of its predecessor, the Arpanet, and from other related
>>>>efforts.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I sent. To prime the pump for the detail:
>>>>
>>>> By saying 'fabric' I meant to distinguish the mechanism for
>>>>moving raw data from the applications that used it. What I'd class
>>>>as distinctive were the TCP/IP separation, the remarkably modest
>>>>functionality of IP, even to the point of moving it's control plane
>>>>to the next level up with ICMP, and continuing with modest
>>>>expectations the layer below (which made it possible to operate
>>>>over any medium including birds.) This is usually characterized as
>>>>moving robustness to the edges.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> d/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Crocker
>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>>> <http://bbiw.net>bbiw.net
>>
>>--============_-846339397==_ma============
>>Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>><!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] Internet
>>"architecture"</title></head><body>
>><div>This is a can of worms, but. . .</div>
>><div><br></div>
>><div>At 4:23 PM +0200 4/12/13, Jon Crowcroft wrote:</div>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>the folks who called it catenet included
>>bob braden who was working at UCL when i was there - of course, we
>>were concatenating networks that ran other protocols (Cambridge Ring,
>>X.25 (transport layer relays) and so on...so perhaps I'm conflating
>>two things - the interconnection of multiple disprate protocol
>>systems, and the IP interconenction of multiple IP networks with
>>disparete layer 2 and below....</blockquote>
>><div><br></div>
>><div>Early on the term catenet was applied without respect to
>>connection or connectionless, but only with respect to forwarding vs.
>>translation (if necessary).</div>
>><div><br></div>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>it is the case (as some other folks
>>privately pointed out to me) that IENs (including IEN 1 written at
>>UCL) are Internet Experiment Notes, and go back to mid 1970s, so i'm
>>wrong to say "internet"</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>however, my point about parsimony is
>>really over compressed - IP trades off simplicity in the data plane,
>>for complexity in the control plane - its not a pure trade off (it can
>>be seen partly as a win-win, as signaling protocols for VC networks
>>can be nearly as complex (or in X.25 and B-ISDN's Q.2931's cases, more
>>complex) as routing protocols....nevertheless, getting routing right
>>and all associated components is seriously non-trivial - other systems
>>(the aforesaid cambridge ring protocol stack) represent a different
>>trade off that is also quite elegant.</blockquote>
>><div><br></div>
>><div>The whole distinction of data plane and control plane arises with
>>ISDN. It is a CCITT concept and was never used to describe anything
>>Internet related, either in the US or Europe. Such distinctions only
>>make sense in the beads-on-a-string models of the ITU. Routing,
>>ICMP, DHCP, etc. type functions were characterized as layer
>>management, which can exist to greater or lesser degree in all layers
>>and must be within the layer owing to the different scopes of the
>>layers.</div>
>><div><br></div>
>><div>Take care,</div>
>><div>John Day</div>
>><div><br></div>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>the post-hoc rationalisation phrase is
>>way too glib....certainly not intended to be rude to people that
>>created this cool stuff we all use - in fact i was conflating three
>>things</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>1. a bunch of work fairly recently on
>>optimal protocols and narrow waist of the hour glass...</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>2. the ordering of constrints on the
>>design of the internet protocols (as per dave clarks 88
>>paper)</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>and</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>3. the apparent simplicity of IP - my
>>missing point was that the complexity pops out somewhere, and that
>>place is in the control plane....as we've since
>>disovered...</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>of course, there were people that ran
>>dynamic distributed routing for VC networks (X.25 for example - we had
>>switches in the JANET network that did this) so they were even more
>>complex in both data and control plane (what with crankback etc
>>etc:)</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>so yes, a bit glib
>>really...sorry</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>normal service will be resumed as soon as
>>I get my IPTV QoS back :)</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>j.</blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
>><br>
>></blockquote>
>><blockquote type="cite" cite>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Fred
>>Baker (fred) <<a href="mailto:fred at cisco.com">fred at cisco.com</a>>
>>wrote:<br>
>><blockquote>I'd suggest running the assertion by Vint. I made a
>>similar assertion in a document not too long ago, which I ran by him
>>for comment, and he told me I was flatly wrong. Yes, the circuit
>>switch folks were using the term "catenet" to refer to
>>networks that interoperated through translation, such as frame
>>relay/ATM interoperation, he asserted, but at least some (he?) was
>>using the term "Internet" as early as the mid 1970's.<br>
>></blockquote>
>><blockquote><br>
>>On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Dave Crocker <<a
>>href="mailto:dhc2 at dcrocker.net">dhc2 at dcrocker.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> This is a risky query. There have been previous threads
>>about such things as the "start" of the Internet.
>> Instead, I want to ask about the "architecture" of the
>>Internet.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Here's a comment that I sent earlier today, to a non-technical
>>person who is aware of the overall Internet timeline, but I believe
>>does not understand what is distinctive about Internet 'architecture'.
>> I'm curious about reactions on this list, and any possible
>>improvements -- including complete replacement -- but more importantly
>>I'm interested in filling in the details:</blockquote>
>><blockquote>><br>
>>> The original use of the term Internet was
>>to describe a distinctive technical design for a distributed, scalable
>>data exchange fabric. Its design characteristics differ
>>dramatically from those of its predecessor, the Arpanet, and from
>>other related efforts.<br>
>>><br>
>>> That's what I sent. To prime the pump for the detail:<br>
>>><br>
>>> By saying 'fabric' I meant to distinguish
>>the mechanism for moving raw data from the applications that used it.
>> What I'd class as distinctive were the TCP/IP separation, the
>>remarkably modest functionality of IP, even to the point of moving
>>it's control plane to the next level up with ICMP, and continuing with
>>modest expectations the layer below (which made it possible to operate
>>over any medium including birds.) This is usually characterized
>>as moving robustness to the edges.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Thoughts?<br>
>>><br>
>>> d/<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Dave Crocker<br>
>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking<br>
>>> <a href="http://bbiw.net">bbiw.net</a></blockquote>
>></blockquote>
>><div><br></div>
>></body>
>></html>
>>--============_-846339397==_ma============--
cheers
jon
More information about the end2end-interest
mailing list