[e2e] end of interest
Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Fri May 9 07:56:50 PDT 2008
one of the more novel ideas being re-propagated in the mad rush to
claim some "new" ground in the geni-flecting of the internet
is data driven networking
a paper that landed on my desk from the sigcomm 2009 rejection heap
entitled "Endless Arguments in Systems Design" has some nice protocol
fragments based around a new taxonomy of nodes in the graph
rather than host + router + middle box,
(or end- and intermediate- system as ISO used to term them)
we only have 1 type of node (lets call it a synch)
instead of 1-1, 1-n, and n-1 communication,
we have 0-n and n-0 communication
the zero indicates uncertainty about the eventual recipient
(or the antideluvian originator)
of course, a sequence of 0-n, n-0
patterns can be constructed indicating cascades or swarms
and possible aggregation and disaggregation of content.
interesting questions arise about
reliability, flow, and congestion control
in such a system - using the famous arguments
in their truest sense from that old paper
from which this august list may take its marching orders,
is quite tricky...
the rest of the paper is left as an excercise for the reader
In missive <email@example.com>, John Day typed:
>>At 16:23 -0400 2008/05/08, Craig Partridge wrote:
>>>In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John Day writes:
>>>>At 9:56 -0400 2008/05/01, Craig Partridge wrote:
>>>>>* Re-examining the middle of the network -- the best example here is what
>>>>> if the router has a 100 GB hard drive in it -- and we view the contents
>>>>> of the hard drive as entirely "soft" (can be lost in an instant).
>>>>> Can we do nifty things? [cf. DTN (which views the drive as reliable,
>>>>> but similar vein), Van's talk @ Google, etc.]
>>>>I think I saw that. Was that the one where at the beginning he
>>>>called for a Copernican revolution in networking and then at end he
>>>>said don't bother touching TCP and below?
>>>I don't think it said don't bother touching TCP and below so much as said
>>>they don't matter. That's certainly what Van said in a more recent talk.
>>>And I think it is right -- if you think you have a game changing paradigm
>>>that can work over existing stuff but might work better over new stuff,
>>>focus on your core idea -- if it works, the rest of the network will
>>>morph to support it.
>>Some time ago, Microsoft had the same idea about dealing with having
>>half an operating system. Didn't work for them, not going to work
>>here. Overlays are building on sand, or trying to sweep the mess
>>under the layer. They can't fix what is fundamentally an incomplete
>>>>>* Energy efficiency -- in this case I worked on an energy efficient radio
>>>>> project and discovered there's very little literature on saving
>>>>> energy in networks. (What are the design principles for an energy
>>>>> efficient transport protocol? Turns out that is a non-trivial and
>>>>> often counter-intuitive problem that has you looking at old ARQ work...)
>>>>So I take it from this list you don't see much in the way of new
>>>>fundamental results coming out of FIND or any of this "new
>>>As I understand it, FIND is pushing a different axis -- it is looking
>>>at architectural issues raised by the innovative research.
>>God forbid, they should tackle the fundamental issues that have been
>>around for a long time. Better to declare victory and move on, I
>>guess. Problem is if they couldn't solve the old ones what
>>confidence should we have they can solve the new ones. Especially
>>when it is highly likely the new ones would not be much of a an issue
>>if they had solved the old ones.
>>Stagnation is so dull.
More information about the end2end-interest