Today in class we read about a lot of the current problems with BGP routing. I was astounded to discover that a significant portion of BGP prefixes (around 25%) continuously flap and can take hours to converge to the correct route. Furthermore, the authors claim a 400 fold reduction in churn rate when using their protocol, the hybrid linkstate path-vector protocol or HLP, which seems to me reason enough to implement the routing protocol, yet we are still BGP.
This makes me feel a little discouraged when faced with the prospect of finding an area of networking research that could eventually be useful enough to be implemented in real networks. Maybe I am thinking on too large of a scale, I am sure there are many aspects of LANs, enterprise networks, etc., that could be modified and updated easily, but since I don't plan on being a system administrator, most of the research I do will be geared toward improving the Internet. However, since the Internet is so large, I understand the difficulties in implementing new architectures and protocols, but when helpful protocols, like HLP, that could make a significant impact on the Internet gets rejected, then there seems little hope for any research idea I could come up with.
On a more positive note though, I am sure that HLP had a significant impact on improvements in BGP in the last few years and there are other avenues of networking research that we have not discussed in class as of yet that could work better for prospective research ideas, such as wireless networks. So I am looking forward to covering that (as well as our sure to be interesting discussion on net neutrality next lesson).
Showing posts with label implementation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label implementation. Show all posts
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
So what's everyone else doing?
In studying how to improve the architecture of the internet, one must look at what has already been done. One of the architectures we studied in class was DONA, which stands for "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network Architecture." Although I didn't understand all the nuances of the architecture, the basic idea of DONA is to improve the efficiency of the internet by understanding that internet usage is data-centric, rather than host-centric, and modeling an architecture to support this trend.
The main problem I see with the proposed architecture is the feasibility of its implementation. Although this aspect of DONA is covered in the article, I feel that a key point was not addressed: how to successfully market it to the masses. In order to successfully launch the 'Internet 2.0,' the millions (or billions) of users must be able to use the system. While DONA is not impossible to use, it is different and, as mentioned in the article, it is more difficult.
Although a data-centric internet would benefit the masses, explaining to them that they must work harder so that the internet can work better may be a difficult task, especially when we consider that the current internet has workarounds in place that allow them to essentially have aspects of a data-centric internet, without having to learn a new naming convention.
Some may argue that this is a problem for psychologists, not students of networking, but I would counter that that type of thinking is what caused the networking problems in the first place. The Internet was created for certain tasks, while research into how users would use the Internet was not even considered at the time, since the entire idea of the Internet had not been completely realized.
I believe that in order to have a successful 'Internet 2.0,' not only should we improve the architecture of the Internet dependent upon its usage in modern times, but we must also properly prepare for its implementation. I won't go so far as to say that the perfect internet would not require users to change their behavior, but if I would propose that if a change in behavior is necessary, then we as researchers should effectively determine a manner in which we can help transition the masses into a new world with a better Internet.
The main problem I see with the proposed architecture is the feasibility of its implementation. Although this aspect of DONA is covered in the article, I feel that a key point was not addressed: how to successfully market it to the masses. In order to successfully launch the 'Internet 2.0,' the millions (or billions) of users must be able to use the system. While DONA is not impossible to use, it is different and, as mentioned in the article, it is more difficult.
Although a data-centric internet would benefit the masses, explaining to them that they must work harder so that the internet can work better may be a difficult task, especially when we consider that the current internet has workarounds in place that allow them to essentially have aspects of a data-centric internet, without having to learn a new naming convention.
Some may argue that this is a problem for psychologists, not students of networking, but I would counter that that type of thinking is what caused the networking problems in the first place. The Internet was created for certain tasks, while research into how users would use the Internet was not even considered at the time, since the entire idea of the Internet had not been completely realized.
I believe that in order to have a successful 'Internet 2.0,' not only should we improve the architecture of the Internet dependent upon its usage in modern times, but we must also properly prepare for its implementation. I won't go so far as to say that the perfect internet would not require users to change their behavior, but if I would propose that if a change in behavior is necessary, then we as researchers should effectively determine a manner in which we can help transition the masses into a new world with a better Internet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)