How The Internet Got Its Hourglass Shape
Researchers at Georgia Tech have come up with an hourglass model that consists of six protocol and application layers that originate from a single bubble - IPv4. The scientists understand this model called EvoArch as an evolutionary process that leads to conclusions why some protocols survive and others do not. These new understandings could be used in future developments to evolve the Internet and help develop new uses and better security, the researchers said.
"To avoid the ossification effects we experience today in the network and transport layers of the Internet, architects of the future Internet need to increase the number of protocols in these middle layers, rather than just push these one- or two-protocol layers to a higher level in the architecture," said Constantine Dovrolis, an associate professor in the School of Computer Science at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
According to the model, there is a "plausible explanation" for the Internet's hourglass shape: "At the top, protocols are so specialized and selective in what underlying building blocks they use that they rarely compete with each other. When there is very little competition, the probability of extinction for a protocol is close to zero," the researchers explained.
"In the top layers of the Internet, many new applications and application-specific protocols are created over time, but few things die, causing the top of the hourglass to get wider over time," said Dovrolis.
In the higher layers, a new protocol can compete and replace an incumbent only if they provide very similar services, according to the EvoArch model. An example would be HTTP that largely replaced FTP. At the bottom, protocols serve as "general building blocks and share many products in the layer above." However, no bottom layer protocol can dominate as they are "used in an abundant way", which protects them from being eliminated. The researchers mentioned Ethernet as an example.
The key conclusion of the model is that few powerful and old protocols will be in the in the middle layers that are referred to as "evolutionary kernels", which include the pillars of the Internet and ensure its stability - IPv4, TCP and UDP. While these elements are difficult to replace, there can be a replacement, according to the scientists. The EvoArch model suggests designing protocols "that are largely non-overlapping in terms of services and functionality so that they do not compete with each other." Once the overlapping factor reaches 70 percent of their functions, protocols begin competing with each other.
Quality of the protocol is not always a guarantee for its success: "It is not true that the best protocols always win the competition," noted Dovrolis. "Often, the kernels of the architecture are lower-quality protocols that were created early and with just the right set of connections."
You'd Also Like
-
Raspberry Pi 4 AMA: Founder Eben Upton Answers Your Burning Questions
Tom's Hardware -
IonQ Quantum Computer Delivers More Processing Power Than Google's
Tom's Hardware -
What's the Right Age to Introduce Your Kid to Computers?
Tom's Hardware -
Intel NUC 8 VR (NUC8i7HVK) Review: Core i7, AMD Vega Meet in Hades Canyon
Tom's Hardware
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.
education, like ignorance, has nothing to do with intelligence.
I wonder how many dissertations were based on this study?
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
BS: Bullshit
MS: More shit
PhD: Piled higher and deeper
These guys should refocus themselves towards building a similar model for the future based on IPv6.
I personally cannot think of a single reason for having multiple, fast evolving, narrow application protocols competing for the position held by IP. Just see how much trouble it has been to replace IPv4 with IPv6 despite urgent reasons to do so. Imagine having multiple organizations deplying regular changes at that level - I cannot fathom how anyone remotely ascociated with computers could thing that would enhance security in any meaningfull way, and the does nothing to prove it either. Yet somehow it arrives at that conclusion.
While I'd admit that we need to evolve past IPv4, the guys behind IPv6 made some serious mistakes when they designed it. They designed a protocol for a "perfect" world and not a real one and have resisted efforts of the business world to get them to change it. One is that 128 bit's is entirely to freaking long for a unique address, heck 64 is too long, but somewhat doable. Next is the way of encoding address's only works for router guys, for everyone else it's not a practical method. Then they try to force you to use IPSEC, something that has broken compatibility depending on how the vender implements it. Products from different venders trying to use IPSEC between them run a 50/50 chance of it just not working. It's so bad that NSA has designed their own HAPIE specification that use's RECIPe (Remote Encryptor Configuration Information Protocol) to enable and setup the tunnels (it's a heavily modified IPSEC implementation). And to final straw is that they refuse to support any implementation of NAPT (what was have in the IPv4 world), which immediately stops many companies from switching over. It's so bad that a Chinese college student went out and built a NAPT66 module for Linux.
China has already changed over to IPv6 and guess what, it didn't do the "nice" thing and give everyone a full /64 range like the IPv6 guys said they would. China also used IPv6 to track, register and catalog every single network device in their country. And due to the forced "end to end" model it allows China's government to track exactly which websites and internet address's that every single Chinese citizen has been to.
So yeah, we're stuck with IPv4 until something better is made, possible IPv7/8 as IPv6 in it's current implementation isn't an answer.
Nah, the Garbage Collector in the Java implementation that I use is pretty clever.
Why not? I went from Portland, Oregon to Pueblo, Colorado by bike the summer that I was seventeen; it was a great experience.
The fact that you're only able to cite one such example speaks volumes in regards to long-distance cycling feasibility...
time
Apple is working on it as we speak
How is this new?
They've been saying that for over 10 years, still hasn't happened. It's not an equipment question, every router, switch, server and PC in use supports IPv6, software isn't an issue as NAT64 exists for that. Networks and Companies aren't switching because IPv6 is cumbersome and too restrictive in its requirements.
49 days, 3,000 miles (indirect route), from 30 to 105 miles per day.
this article and it's findings are only covering 1/2 at best, of what is supposed to be the wheel and all if it's spokes, not just half of them at opposite ends.