Fundamental changes to Internet architecture

Fri Jul 1 15:27:24 UTC 2005

On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote:
>>
>> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
>> network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many 
>> levels.
>
> Not that I want to throw any more fire on this, but I think the 
> article is
> talking about National Lambda Rail.  From what I've seen, this is 
> supposed to
> be a next-generation Internet2 based on wavelengths instead of pipes.  
> I don't
> know a lot about it but, from what I've seen, my impression is this.  
> Keep in
> mind that I'm not really involved with the NLR stuff directly, so my 
> thoughts
> are really as an outsider looking in.

To clarify a bit:  Dave Clark is talking about a new, proposed research 
agenda for networking research that emphasizes the heck out of making 
the research become real and relevant.  He's not talking about building 
an NLR or an Internet2, though both NLR and I2 are resources that can 
and probably will be used as a part of the demonstration network, if 
the project really takes off.

In fact, Fergie's later comment "... We're pretty far along in our 
current architecture to 'fundamentally' change" is actually the root of 
what I think DC is trying to get at.  I think it's a very reasonable 
question to ask:  Is the Internet heading towards a local maxima?  (I 
don't know the answer!)  What is it possible to change in today's 
Internet?  Imagine a couple of things that seem desirable:

If research came up with an improved inter-domain routing protocol that 
had faster convergence, better security and better stability than BGP, 
but that was unfortunately in no way backwards compatible, could we 
deploy it?

A solution to DDoS that required another change to the basic IP packet 
format?

An improved intra-domain management and control system?

Of those, some seem possible -- particularly the latter, given that it 
could be deployed by a single ISP on its own, giving it (ideally!) a 
competitive advantage over others.  A BGP replacement, if the 
designers/ietf/etc. couldn't figure out a way to make it backwards 
compatable?  Not so sure.  Another IP packet format change, after all 
of the pain of trying to get IPv6 deployed?

Perhaps more of the answers to these questions would be "yes" if it 
were possible to demonstrate - at scale - that the new protocols were 
actually effective and worthwhile.  Or perhaps the answers would be 
"yes" if that demonstration network exploded in popularity because it 
had those features, and the NSF found itself with another Internet on 
its hands. :)

I think it's these kind of questions that Dave Clark is trying to get 
at, much more than just trying to build a really fast demonstration 
network.

Is the clean-slate approach the way to go?  I don't know.  It could 
work out well, or perhaps academia would be better served by sending 
more of our students to summer internships at ISPs who're doing 
innovative things.  I do know that Dave Clark is a damn smart guy, and 
he does have TCP under his belt loops.  Sometimes you have to aim for 
the sky...

Disclaimer:  While I've heard some of the discussion about this 
proposal, I'm speaking only for myself on this one.

   -Dave