Slashdot Mirror


Rendezvous Developer Stuart Cheshire Interviewed

overunderunderdone writes "Found this interview of Stuart Cheshire, the Apple employee who developed Rendezvous (a.k.a. Zeroconf) and co-chairs the ZEROCONF working group. He provides some interesting history behind Zeroconf. But I thought his ideas for the future of Rendezvous was more interesting. He envisions a single protocol for everything from the keyboard, hard disk, peripherals, to the net connection -- just one kind of socket in the back of your box."

8 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Stuart Who?! by JohnPM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only important thing to know about Stuart Cheshire is that he created the the mindnumbingly addictive global internet phenomenom called Bolo.
    It was the first big non-text game to be played over the internet and it was huge when I was at uni 1993-96.
    He created it for his PhD and it's good to see he hasn't been idle since then!

    --
    Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
  2. Sounds like a noisy, troublesome protocol... by Future+Linux-Guru · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I read somewhere else that this will go out and find all the printers (and other devices I guess) that are on your network so you have less work to do.

    Sounds like it will muss up a clean running IP network like IPX did. If so, no thanks.

    1. Re:Sounds like a noisy, troublesome protocol... by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like it will muss up a clean running IP network like IPX did. If so, no thanks.

      But nothing IPX can do is worse than someone with a lot of bandwidth and a duplicate IP address can do.

      IPX without SAP/RIP spoofing was murder on really, really low-bandwidth WAN links or cheesy imitations thereof that used long-haul bridges.

      But IPX (and Appletalk) had a lot of *good* things about them, too that take much more work and much more complexity to achieve in IP. Automatic client node addressing -- it just works in IPX, in IP it takes a whole infrastructure (DHCP server, integration with DNS, etc).

      Service location -- it just worked with IPX SAP. SLP (at least the little exposure I had with it and Netware 5) was mind-numbingly complicated and often relied on multicast.

      No shortage of addresses, either - IPX gave you 32 bits of network addressing and 48 bits of node addressing.

  3. Re:there is a reasons there are different protocol by d3xt3r · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No, they invented these differenct protocols because one did not exist at the time that suited their product's needs.

    And while the idea of having a ubiqitous protocol (sort of like the protocol equivalent of XML) would be beneficial in a lot of ways, it is somewhat naive, IMHO, to think that it could be achieved. New ideas come up all the time, and people have created new protocols, languages, and ways of exchanging those ideas simply because the idea does not fit within the scope of that which already exists.

    It's called innovation. As long as people continue to innovate, new ways of implementing those ides (protocols) will need to be created.

  4. single protocol?? WHAT?? by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm amazed by how many posts there are talking about single-protocol-this and single-protocol-that. My favorites are the ones talking about how having a single protocol leads to licensing fees and restrictions, and the one about how a single protocol is insecure.

    Didn't you losers even read the article? Rendezvous is basically two things: self-assigned link-local IP addressing, and automatic service discovery. In other words, you computer can automatically assign a local IP address to itself, then discover services available on other computers via particular UDP packets. Get two computers in proximity to each other, and they'll be able to ``see'' each other's shared volumes. Get one computer connected (wirelessly or wired-ly) to a printer, and the computer will be able to ``see'' the printer.

    If you ever used Mac OS n (n poof.

    RTFA, indeed.

  5. Re:Other things Mr. Cheshire provided us with: by frankie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey, don't forget his (sadly unimplemented) contribution to improved modem communications:

    Number 3: It's the Latency, Stupid

    Stuart's official title at Apple is "Wizard Without Portfolio", meaning smart guy not tied to any one department. He's earned that.

  6. Modem latency by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    John Carmack was, at one point, going to spend some time seeing if Winmodems (which are mostly host-side software) could be reimplemented with a different link-level protocol for better latency.

    The basic problem is historical. There are several layers of emulation in a modem for historical reasons, and each of them adds latency.

    Today's modems are actually synchronous devices with a block-oriented link level protocol connected to a parallel data bus inside the computer. But, for historical reasons, they pretend to be asynchronous byte-oriented devices driven off serial ports. This legacy introduces two sources of delay.

    The first source of delay is that modems that emulate serial ports clock data into the modem byte by byte, and not at all that fast a rate. This introduces delay just moving the data from the CPU to the modem's buffers, even before it reaches the phone line.

    The second source of delay is the conversion of a byte stream to blocks. The modem sees a byte stream to be sent. It's probably a PPP byte stream, divided into packets, but, typically, the modem doesn't know that. The modem has to block that data up into blocks and send it. But the modem doesn't know where the packets begin and end. It has to guess. Typically, it guesses by using an "accumulation timer", which decides that no more bytes are coming when some period of time has elapsed with no data. This, of course, introduces yet more latency.

    These two effects interact, making things even worse. The delay in the accumulation timer has to be scaled to the simulated async "data rate", making the unwanted latency even longer.

    Modems today ought to be block devices, like Ethernet controllers. Then you'd just blast an IP datagram down to the modem over the PCI bus, and it would start going out on the wire immediately. But there's so much infrastructure built around async modem emulation and PPP that it's hard to change this now.

  7. Universal, hermaphroditic connector by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Hermaphroditic connectors are rarely used. They should be used whenever the application is symmetrical. Twisted-pair serial connections should have been hermaphroditic since their inception. Not only does this resolve the connector gender problem, it resolves the straight-through/crossover cable problem. There's only one kind of cable.

    The problem isn't going away. Ethernet null-modem cables are widely used with DSL modems, providing an unnecessary source of consumer confusion.

    The video production industry gets it. The SMTPE standard connector for fibre-optic broadcast work is hermaphroditic, much to the relief of production crews.

    There ought to be hermaphroditic connectors in USB and RJ11-like form factors, but there aren't.