RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)

Scott Weeks surfer at mauigateway.com
Mon Nov 8 17:02:34 CST 2010

Been unexpectedly gone for the weekend, apologies for the delay.  Wow, can subjects get hijacked quickly here.  I think it happened within one or two emails.  It was just for weekend fun anyway...

--- bill at herrin.us wrote:
From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>

> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture: Layers are recursive."

: Anyone who has bridged an ethernet via a TCP based
: IPSec tunnel understands that layers are recursive.

WRT the paper I'm having trouble correlating what you say with their notion of recursive layer network communications.  It seems apples and oranges, but maybe I have Monday-its.  It's only a little after noon here.

> http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf

: John Day has been chasing this notion long enough to write three
: network stacks. If it works and isn't obviously inferior in its
: operational resource consumption, where's the proof-of-concept code?

Not having read the following enough, being in operations and not in the research areas as much as others on this list I don my flameproof underpants and post this:

pouzinsociety.org gives: 
"The TSSG developed CBA prototype, which consists of a fully functional componentised network stack and the ancillary supporting infrastructure, has been contributed to the Pouzin Society as the TINOS project.

TINOS will provide the underlying platform and execution environment upon which a RINA prototype can be developed.

The TSSG and i2CAT will be joining forces with the Pouzin Society to contribute to the development of a RINA prototype based on the TINOS platform.

The TINOS code is freely available under the LGPL license."

the "CBA prototype" link being: http://www.tssg.org/4WARD/2010/07/component_based_architecture_n.html

Seemingly unfortunate (to me) is: "...an open-source project to create a Java platform operating system."

: The last time this was discussed in the Routing Research Group, none
: of the proponents were able to adequately describe how to build a
: translation/forwarding table in the routers or whatever passes for
: routers in this design.

When I asked on RRG I was told by the chairs, privately, that no open-slate designs would be considered.  No RINA proponents are participating in the list, as well.

WRT RRG I had assumed various proposals would be considered with equal respect and dignity, the basic components described, a 'winner' selected and then the engineering details designed.  Watching the list has been an experience in reality (it's not all peace, love and happiness out there :-) and I now more clearly understand the comments made by others on this list about the process.  Since it wasn't allowed on RRG, I hoped to spur discussion here between those who spend more cycles in research and learn from that discussion.  It didn't happen yet...  ;-)


ps.  Thanks for the response.  I am really curious about the approach.  It would seem to weed out a lot of redundant things that various layers repeat.

More information about the NANOG mailing list