diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md | 48 |
1 files changed, 28 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md b/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md index fc0dac4..3c857a8 100644 --- a/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md +++ b/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md @@ -458,15 +458,18 @@ Apart from building towards CIDR from the ground up, we have also derived _what network addresses really are_: they consist of names of forwarding elements in a unicast node and reflect the organisation of these forwarding elements in a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Now, -there is still a (rather amusing) discussion on whether to assign IP -adresses to nodes or interfaces. This discussion is moot: you can -write your name on your mailbox, that doesn't make it the name of your -mailbox, it is _your_ name. It is also a false dichotomy caused by -device-oriented thinking, looking at a box of electronics with a bunch -of holes in which to plug some wires (or some antennas to tune to a -certain frequency), and then thinking that we either have to name the -box or the holes/antennas: the answer is _neither_. I will come back -to this when discussing multi-homing. +there is still a (rather amusing) and seemingly neverending discussion +in the network community on whether IP adresses should be assigned to +nodes or interfaces. This discussion is moot: you can write your name +on your mailbox, that doesn't make it the name of your mailbox, it is +_your_ name. It is also a false dichotomy caused by device-oriented +thinking, looking at a box of electronics with a bunch of holes in +which to plug some wires, and then thinking that we either have to +name the box or the holes: the answer is _neither_. Just like a post +office building doesn't do anything without post office workers (or +their automated robotic counterparts), a router or switch doesn't do +anything without forwarding elements. I will come back to this when +discussing multi-homing. One additional thing is that in the current IP Internet, the layout of the routing areas is predominantly administratively defined and @@ -489,17 +492,22 @@ build an Internet that doesn't require all possible end users to share the same network (layer)? My answer is not proven and therefore not conclusive, but I think yes, -any public Internet -- where it is possible for any end-user to reach -any application at scale -- will always need at least one (unicast) -layer that spans most of the systems on the network and thus a global -address space. In the current Internet, applications are identified by -an IP address and port, and the Domain Name System (DNS) maps the host -name to an IP address (or a set of IP addresses). In any general -Internetwork, if applications were in private networks, we would need -a system to find the (private network, node name in private network) -for some application, and every end-host would need to reach that -system, which -- unless I am missing something big -- means that -system will need a global address space[^14]. +any public Internetwork at scale -- where it is possible for any +end-user to reach any application -- will always need at least one +(unicast) layer that spans most of the systems on the network and thus +a global address space. In the current Internet, applications are +identified by an IP address and (well-defined) port, and the Domain +Name System (DNS) maps the host name to an IP address (or a set of IP +addresses). In any general Internetwork, if applications were in +private networks, we would need a system to find the (private network, +node name in private network) for some application, and every end-host +would need to reach that system, which -- unless I am missing +something big -- means that system will need a global address +space[^14]. + +### Multi-homing + + ### Dealing with limited link capacity |