[e2e] Internet "architecture"

John Day jeanjour at comcast.net
Mon Apr 15 11:54:53 PDT 2013

At 6:25 PM +0200 4/15/13, christian.tschudin at unibas.ch wrote:
>With everbody talking about architectures in 
>plural, your "style of construction" definition 
>could be misunderstood that net arch has more to 
>do with personal preferences or artistic trait 
>rather than science.

There are many methods of generating an 
architecture.  The definition I quoted was of 
course referring to buildings, etc.

My own approach has always been firmly rooted in 
science as opposed to natural history.

>But the nice part is that it says: architecture 
>is here even if the engineer is not aware of it.

Yes, I have referred to some as Karnack 
architectures, but Johnny Carson has probably 
been gone too long for that to be meaningful.

Take care,

>Which is quite true for the Internet or SDN 
>where we (still) try to understand what is going 
>on, and at which level:
>   is it a masterplan (or meta-architecture, à la Hausmann's plan for Paris)?
>   is it a set of concepts (layering, e2e, CO/CL, globally unique addr)
>   is it a set of mechanisms (TCP plus IP, OF)?
>The meta-architecture discussion is interesting: 
>why for example the Internet fails to be one, 
>that there aren't more radical approaches to 
>this than AN, or whether a meta-arch at the end 
>is a set of mechanisms à la ANA, RNA or SDN.
>In 2009 I helped organize the netarch2009.net 
>symposium, currently I'm pondering to have a 
>follow up event 5 years later. Writing this up 
>is just another way of saying: yes, we should.
>best, christian
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, John Day wrote:
>>I basically use the dictionary definition of "a 
>>style of construction."  The important 
>>distinction being between an architecture and 
>>buildings built to that architecture.  (I don't 
>>remember what dictionary I found that in.  It 
>>was 30 years ago.)
>>I would say that 90% of the usage in the field 
>>refers buildings, rather than *architectures.*
>>For example, the 7-layer OSI model is a building, not an architecture.
>>Take care,
>>At 4:35 PM -0400 4/14/13, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>>     > From: Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>>     > architecure remains as hard as ever
>>>I'm interested to know what 'architecture' means to you both; I know what
>>>_I_ mean by the term, but I'm not sure the 
>>>field as a whole has a consistent,
>>>well-understood meaning, yet.
>>>	Noel

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list