Subject: RE: [arch-d] Defining terms

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:45:36 -0500

I think we can agree to disagree and move forward.  See John Loughney's
mail I fully agree with John. Not saying we should not think out of the
box but to put forth any new Internet archicture components without a
transition is not wise.  This will come up again but suggest we move
forward with idea generation from all the bright people on this list.

Best,
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:20 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; Joe Touch
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [arch-d] Defining terms
> 
> At 01:33 22/03/2006, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 
> >Now that is very interesting view.  I can go there but would 
> like for it
> >to be other than just the two of us ---). Anyone not ok with this
> >suggestion?
> >
> >But at the end if we break compatibility with today it may 
> never happen
> >for the right or wrong reasons.  Thus we could spin and never get to
> >deployment of the idea.
> 
> I think not. Because there is no real architecture RFC. Even RFC 1958 
> is more recipes for good design.
> Also because a good architectural solution should support the 
> convergence of the existing technologies. We all know/want it.
> Also because this architecture is to deliver communications within 
> the same digital ecosystem. By definition there will be bridges. The 
> practical test of credibility will be the ROI of a transition.
> 
> We want a model which will last. It cannot depend on the engineering 
> solutions it is to replace. Retro-compatibility with passed 
> limitations cannot be the base of a brillant future.
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >Again that is ok with me too.
> >
> >/jim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:42 PM
> > > To: Joe Touch
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [arch-d] Defining terms
> > >
> > > At 17:46 21/03/2006, Joe Touch wrote:
> > >
> > > >See RFC 3884 for the differences ;-)
> > >
> > > I suggest that discussing architecture (to also have 
> confusion with
> > > "configurations") means never alluding to an RFC, ISO 
> standard, etc.
> > > Because they talk of a specific and past approach.
> > > jfc
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> > >
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:13:31 +0100

>forward with idea generation from all the bright people on this list.

I am afraid I was not clear enough. I do not think that transitions 
should not be considered. I think they are not a real problem. This is because:
1. every propositon deals with the same digital ecosystem. This 
implies some built-in compatibility.
2. transitions are a matter of cost (financial and operational). New 
propositions will not be seriously considered if the returns of the 
transition costs are not acceptable. The corollary is that if a new 
architecture is worth the cost of change, it MAY go through.

IMHO the priority is the best network "value" (I documented the 
formula I use). Backward compatibility and transition considerations 
should come after. We should keep in mind that incremental changes 
are replacements. So, this is the same situation as when we created 
the international system. And when we implemented its next 
architectures. The Internet is the third architecture of the 
international network. We consider the fourth one now. So we have 
experience. We figured out already three times to successfully deploy a change.

At 14:51 22/03/2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>What nobody has ever figured out a good way to do is get such a new
>architecture actually deployed, i.e. get community consensus that this
>wonderful new architecture is the way to go.

This is another way to say the same thing. But it shows the usual 
error (ex. IPv6, IDNA, etc.). This is to consider that "global" means 
a single community, instead of "every communitie together". There is 
no way to find a consensus involving everyone.

Architectural transitions are not engineering evolutions. They call 
for (virtual) gateways between the community of the users of the new 
architecture and the community of the users of the old architecure. 
There is a buil-in consensus in the first one. There are mixed 
feelings in the other one. The ROI obtained by the first community is 
the only/main motivation of the second community. Taking this for 
"buzz-word" having no place here can be understood. But it may be the 
answer to the question why brillant propositions did not appeal on wallets.

NB. Gateways can be virtual
- either because the old architecture is/is made hybrid and supports both.
- or because they are between two layers. For example: what is above 
is now and below is not.

It seems that the lack of formal Internet architecture makes both 
these virtual splits difficult. This would only leave physical split 
(the network of the networks).

I think there is a layer where it is possible to have a "layer virual 
gateway" whatever the technology. By the same token it could help 
supporting convergence. This is between 7th (application) and what I 
call 8th (interapplication) layers. In internet architecture 
interapplication layer could be termed a "smart edge" (or smart 
plug). Located where OPES should be.

If you consider the 8th layer as a shim between the user agent and 
the network,
- for the network it is AN (Internet) end
- for the user it is THE (possibly multitechnology, multilink) networking end.
("plug" may speak better than "end").

This opens many new architectural and transition possibilities. One 
is the welding several network end to end connections into a single 
link. This permits what I name ONES (open network extended services): 
several "end" OPES can be netted to a same ONES. It would permit to 
bring an apparent network core intelligence (ONES) to a standard end 
to end system (or several ones acting in parallel - ex. back-up). 
This also pemits easy transitions: the operations of layer 8th and 
above is independent from layer 1-7 architectural evolution. This 
makes the user independent from the underlying technology.

(I initially explained that I am interested in brainware and usage 
aspects (what I call layer 8th/12th - where the decision making wallets are)).
jfc

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:37:33 -0500

I completely agree with Jefsey on this.

But I do have one question.  If the Internet is the 3rd architecture, 
what were the other 2?

ARPANet and CYCLADES?

Take care,
John

At 20:13 +0100 2006/03/22, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>error (ex. IPv6, IDNA, etc.). This is to consider that "global" 
>means a single community, instead of "every communitie together". 
>There is no way to find a consensus involving everyone.
>
>feelings in the other one. The ROI obtained by the first community 
>is the only/main motivation of the second community. Taking this for 
>"buzz-word" having no place here can be understood. But it may be 
>the answer to the question why brillant propositions did not appeal 
>on wallets.
>
>I think there is a layer where it is possible to have a "layer 
>virual gateway" whatever the technology. By the same token it could 
>help supporting convergence. This is between 7th (application) and 
>what I call 8th (interapplication) layers. In internet architecture 
>link. This permits what I name ONES (open network extended 
>services): several "end" OPES can be netted to a same ONES. It would 
>permit to bring an apparent network core intelligence (ONES) to a 
>standard end to end system (or several ones acting in parallel - ex. 
>back-up). This also pemits easy transitions: the operations of layer 
>8th and above is independent from layer 1-7 architectural evolution. 
>This makes the user independent from the underlying technology.
>

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:37:33 -0500

ARPANet and CYCLADES?

Take care,
John

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:33:34 -0800

> But I do have one question.  If the Internet is the 3rd architecture, 

Nit:

The ARPANet was architecturally identical to the Internet that we know
today.  The only small changes that we've made are to replace some of
the specific protocols in certain subsystems (i.e., EGP -> BGP) and some
tweaks (e.g., subnetting).  No significant architectural changes have
been made since 1/1/83.

My TIP for the day,
Tony

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:47:56 -0800

> tweaks (e.g., subnetting).  No significant architectural changes have

Not to disagree too strongly, especially with a nit, but that kind of
depends on what you define as "the ARPANET".

After 1/1/83, when the IP protocol suite was mandated on the ARPANET (and,
imho, the "Internet" was born), the ARPANET became one subnet of it (the
first "backbone network" as it were) and thus used the same architecture.

Prior to 1/1/83, the ARPANET architecture was built on other protocols, such
as NCP and X.25 transport, GGP and EGP routing protocols, etc., that were
quite different than the IP suite. More fundamentally, the ARPANET was not a
"network of networks". Other networks (such as CSNET, BITNET, et al) did have
mail gateways to reach the ARPANET but there were no common transport or
end-to-end inter-network communication.

(yes, I have been doing this stuff way too long... veteran of the NCP-to-TCP
transition with the scars to show for it... on 1/1/83, I ran the only TOPS-20
system that had both a DECNET DN20 and an ARPANET/NCP AN20; needless to say,
the TCP/IP implementation was "not ready for prime time" and did not play
well in such an environment... :-)

	--Vince

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:48:46 -0500

>tweaks (e.g., subnetting).  No significant architectural changes have

Actually, it wasn't.  The ARPANet had more in common with X.25 until 
Type 3 messages were defined.  And even then most of the time Type 3 
wasn't used.  The Internet made the big shift to pure connectionless. 
By 75 or so, I think we had all mentally adopted the model that was 
completely in place by 83, but it took until 83 for it to be a 
reality.

Take care,
John

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:48:46 -0500

Take care,
John