Re: Internet "architecture"
[email protected] (Noel Chiappa)
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.end2end |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> From: Dave Crocker <[email protected]> > The original use of the term Internet was to describe a distinctive > technical design Err, that would be '_i_nternet'; that term came first, by quite a few years. The term '_I_nternet', introduced later, was brought in to denote specifically to the large one which has nowdays swallowed most (But not all! The term 'airgap' exists for a reason!) of them. > for a distributed, scalable data exchange fabric. I'm not sure how far I'd go with the 'scalable'. The earliest version only supported 256 networks, and it's been a constant struggle ever since to keep it growable! (Long diatribe on turns missed elided...) I think its main novelty, in terms of goals, was its ability to tie together many heterogeneous kinds of networks; it was that that led to many of its characteristic architectural aspects (e.g. moving the reliability into the hosts). > What I'd class as distinctive were the TCP/IP separation True, although i) that wasn't in the earliest versions, and I _think_ (without checking) that CYCLADES had a similar kind of thing. > the remarkably modest functionality of IP, even to the point of moving > it's control plane to the next level up with ICMP Again, I think CYCLADES had that (ditto comment about having to check). > and continuing with modest expectations the layer below (which made it > possible to operate over any medium including birds.) I think this (along with the whole 'separate _inter_network header which stays the same as local headers come and go', with a single internet-wide naming domain which was used for the names in that header) is probably TCP/IP's big step over CYCLADES. (And I'd have to check if CYCLADES made an unreliable packet service available directly to users. If not, add that to the list.) > This is usually characterized as moving robustness to the edges. I think those two are somewhat orthogonal, actually. Yes, to get that 'run over anything' you probably do have to move the reliability to the edges, but I can imagine homogeneous networks which also moved reliability to the edges. Noel