 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
2 edits | Clean-Slate Whitepaper Critique One can learn a lot about an author’s perspective by choice of words.
quote:
… We don’t believe that we can or should continue to relay on a network that is often broken, frequently disconnected, unpredictable in its behavior, rampant with (and unprotected from) malicious users, and probably not economically sustainable.
That is a prettying damning quote for a technology that has revolutionized communications, empowered people, and is about to displace 100-year-old telephone network.
They are looking into five areas: Network Architecture, Heterogeneous applications, heterogeneous physical layer, Security, and Economics.
1) Architecture
The author argues “end-to-end” principle thwarts innovation and then cites several modifications that were implemented quickly as an example why it is a bad idea. To me that is a benefit of transparent “end-to-end” architecture it allowed these modifications to be rolled out quickly.
It is still unclear whether congestion is best dealt with via over provisioning or quality of service. Bandwidth is not free, but then neither are these complex prioritization protocols. One needs to keep in mind priority schemes to do not increase bandwidth they select winners and losers.
2) Heterogeneous application
The report mentions sensor networks as placing new demands on the network but doesn’t really delve into their unique attributes. Sensors are often extremely power constrained. IP protocols were not designed to accommodate this “feature.” Security is important both to conceal information from intruders and to prevent spoofing. Normally one does not worry about Signals Intelligence when designing a civilian network but that becomes a key consideration with sensors. Learning Sensor A it talking to Widget Z at time X may be enough to compromise the entire network.
The multicast vs unicast debate is contentious. Internet protocols do not handle broadcast transmission very well. There are solutions but they have not yet been widely implemented. All commercial content is based on a one-to-many distribution model. This was a direct result of the technology available at the time: radio, print publishing, film distribution etc.
A key question the paper does not even ask, much less address, is whether or not there is inherent value in “broadcast” one to many or does unicast using a peer-to-peer model make better use of high-speed networks and computers? In the olden days bandwidth and storage were expensive. Only a few players had access to mass distribution. Technology turns that on its head. Both are cheap, the old optimizations no longer apply.
Rather then focus on multicast does it make more sense to utilize readily available storage and network capacity to facilitate on demand access using peer-to-peer technology? This offer great value and low cost because users act as both data sources and sinks. This sort of arraignment is not possible with previous technologies. Being distributed it is also very robust and secure.
3) Heterogeneous Physical Layers
This is the section I agree with the most. Digital technology has wetted people’s appetite for data: where I want it, when I want it and how I want it. Mobility places great demands on the network.
4) Security
Insecure devices are the cause of many Internet security problems. If devices were less susceptible to compromise the amount of malicious traffic would decrease.
Security requires a mechanism to allow Bob to trust Alice even if they have never met. That is a hard problem usually involving trusted third parties. That immediately brings all kinds of new threats and complexity to the scene.
Security is often at odds with anonymity. This is another key attribute left out the paper. What is the proper role of anonymity vs trust? How much information should third parities be privy to? Secrets are impossible to keep. The more data collected the more will leak out. What is the best balance between privacy vs security?
5) Economic
The authors assumption is the only way to organize the network is for all components to be in the private sector, optimized for maximum profitability. Perhaps this is the best solution but shouldn't such a wide-ranging study at least look at the tradeoffs? Should the Internet be all private, all public, or some combination of public/private partnership?
For example the highway system is owned and managed by the government as a public good. The availability of excellent highways allows private companies to compete and flourish.
Another example is air travel. Again public sector owns and operates the enabling infrastructure, airports. Private companies compete to deliver services.
Summary
The authors have their bias, as I mine. For a massive research project geared to rethinking the future of the Internet this sure looks like more warmed over old ideas.
/Tom |
