Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf on Why TCP/IP Was So Long in Coming
whitehartstag writes "TCP/IP is 25 years old this year. Vint Cerf says there was a long development cycle for both TCP/IP and for X.25, and we'd have been using TCP/IP much sooner if TCP/IP had been more marketable. 'Over the years, we can come up with many examples both of where the best technology did (or did not) win and of how marketing has defined a service. For example, many of the "best" features of frame relay, such as the ability to use Switched Virtual Circuits (SVC) in addition to Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVC) were never widely marketed because the pricing was too complex. Rather, the PVC was a simple replacement for a leased line at a fraction of the cost with better performance.'"
I know that there isn't much real content on the web anymore, but that's not even an article. Where the hell is the content?
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
So why is it normal for the immaterial to matter more than the significant? It is normal, but it is also irrational and nonsensical.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Apparently the "article" is a response to a comment (the only comment, mind you) attached to this "article", which is similarly content-free.
Unfortunately, for all of us, IPv6 is heading our way like some rusty old stream train. Its rickety and badly designed, but massive, and will squash anything in the way.
IPv4 at least was designed well, and has lasted a long time. However, IPv6 has no firewall/NAT support (if you are in a company, you have to have a firewall, else you run afoul of a lot of corporate regs like SOX, HIPAA, and if doing credit cards, PCI). You can't tunnel or VPN (if you do, you pretty much do IPv4 routing as a kludge.) Finally, it doesn't support a person having their own permanent IP range. You are forced to use a subset of the range of whomever you are connecting to, and if you change ISPs or peers, you have to completely re-IP your servers.
Of course, the opportunity was missed to have crypto at the IP level, rather than have it bolted/kludged on (like IPSec.)
The translation list is here.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If the customers are the only ones who could gain, and everyone else would lose, then who is going to be insane enough to switch on multicast routing to the home?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
And cable has been able to deal with the pricing issues for decades. The content is encrypted, with multiple keys---one for each subscriber. Anyone else can receive the multicast, but it does them no good without the key. When you join the stream, you not only join at an IP level, you authorise against the broadcaster and your key is enabled. For which you are sent a bill.
So, content provider gets to sell content to consumer, and network provider reduces costs. Content provider also knows exactly who has received the content.
For unencrypted content your points are valid, however even there a strong economic case can be made for multicast. Each consumer pays for bandwidth, so there is no direct cost benefit of multicast for them. But, it is in the network provider's interest to reduce costs, and by reducing bandwidth, multicast does this. Finally however, the content provider also has to buy bandwidth from somewhere, namely their upstream provider. They also have to serve that content. The economic benefits of a single server and 100Mbps (multicast) vs tens/hundreds of servers and 10Gbps (unicast) are fairly compelling to potential video content providers, if not to traditional text/web providers.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.