How The Internet Got Its Hourglass Shape

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Douglas Perry
Contributor

Douglas Perry was a freelance writer for Tom's Hardware covering semiconductors, storage technology, quantum computing, and processor power delivery. He has authored several books and is currently an editor for The Oregonian/OregonLive.

  • juanc
    I sometimes feel I those PhDs are more or less as intelligent as garbage collectors.
    Reply
  • acadia11
    The question if it ain't broke, why fix it, TCP functions fine as the backbone of the internet why replace it. Unix/and it's derivatives Linux function great as OS model and have for some 40 years, again, why replace it. The more things change the more they stay the same. For example, cloud computing, it's the Mainframe model outside of the closed eco-system that was most mainframe architecture, i.e. the thin /dumb client ... connecting to the heavy duty cloud (main frame) which has your app storage, and data storage.

    It's now just been integrated to "Cloud" that is internet based, as opposed to a closed architecture.

    The wheel has worked for some 60,000 years, its same basic protocol has not needed to be changed, with that said. Unless, there is a need to replace it, why do so, that's the point the researchers seem to miss.
    Reply
  • That for sure goes in my list of the 10 most stupid articles I've read in my life; by reading it I've lowered my IQ some points.
    Reply
  • SapienChavez
    juancI sometimes feel I those PhDs are more or less as intelligent as garbage collectors.
    education, like ignorance, has nothing to do with intelligence.

    Reply
  • COLGeek
    To quote the great Homer Simpson...."Doh!!!"

    I wonder how many dissertations were based on this study?
    Reply
  • cypeq
    This picture is missing at least 40 arrows but I get the point to make it simplistic but I just don't know why internet construction never was and never will be so simple.
    Reply
  • nicodemus_mm
    acadia11The question if it ain't broke, why fix it, TCP functions fine as the backbone of the internet why replace it. Unix/and it's derivatives Linux function great as OS model and have for some 40 years, again, why replace it. The more things change the more they stay the same. For example, cloud computing, it's the Mainframe model outside of the closed eco-system that was most mainframe architecture, i.e. the thin /dumb client ... connecting to the heavy duty cloud (main frame) which has your app storage, and data storage.It's now just been integrated to "Cloud" that is internet based, as opposed to a closed architecture. The wheel has worked for some 60,000 years, its same basic protocol has not needed to be changed, with that said. Unless, there is a need to replace it, why do so, that's the point the researchers seem to miss.
    A bicycle works fine for travel, but I'm not going to use it to go from Maine to California. The wheel also isn't made of stone now. The idea that because something "works" we shouldn't research improvements or replacements is ludicrous. Sometimes change brings about innovations in efficiency, reliability and new features to improve the lives of those using the product. That's how breakthroughs are discovered. Most of these are points that you seemed to miss.

    ~ Nicodemus
    Reply
  • theoldgrumpybear
    And how many "new" patents will be filed with this model as basis?
    Reply
  • Benihana
    As they say:

    BS: Bullshit
    MS: More shit
    PhD: Piled higher and deeper
    Reply
  • RazberyBandit
    This would have been great 10 to 20 years ago when IPv4 was still practical, but it's limitation of 4.3 billion unique addresses doesn't work today. IPv4's days on the Internet are numbered. The population and technology booms since it's adoption have significantly reduced it's expected lifespan. It'll still work great for closed networks, but it's no longer sustainable when it comes to outside communications.

    These guys should refocus themselves towards building a similar model for the future based on IPv6.
    Reply