[e2e] Internet "architecture"
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.
>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.
>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.
>>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.
More information about the end2end-interest