[HN Gopher] Arpanet pioneer Jack Haverty says the internet was n... ___________________________________________________________________ Arpanet pioneer Jack Haverty says the internet was never finished Author : onei Score : 39 points Date : 2022-03-12 13:47 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.theregister.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com) | tonymet wrote: | For one we're limited to TCP and UDP- without a better protocol | for media streaming . | | authentication was omitted , resulting in horrifying UX and | security holes | | and the omission of encryption led to sloppy tunneling solutions | that are still being reworked 50 years later | Karrot_Kream wrote: | > For one we're limited to TCP and UDP- without a better | protocol for media streaming . | | What's wrong with UDP for media? Is it the lack of multicast? | | > authentication was omitted , resulting in horrifying UX and | security holes | | While this is painfully obvious now I don't think the original | Internet pioneers have ever really thought of the need for | authentication as the ubiquity and threat landscape was very | different. Regardless, we're all paying the price now. | tonymet wrote: | that's like saying addresses are enough to deliver mail. | there's still flow control , error correction , buffering , | authentication , stream multiplexing, compression, encoding | etc etc | | streaming protocols handle this at the app layer but it would | have been nice to have a protocol between reliable tcp and | wild west udp | kragen wrote: | UDP supports multicast | wyldfire wrote: | One of the biggest bummers is how much the Internet has mostly | collapsed to TCP and of that a very large share is http/https. | UDP is still going strong for a handful of important | applications. But if it's not one of those two -- good luck | getting end-to-end transit. | alar44 wrote: | What exactly is your complaint? | malwarebytess wrote: | I thought he was pretty clear. The internet itself shouldn't | be limited to merely TCP et al. It's just wires. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | That middleboxes constantly stymie innovation through | ossification. At least that's what I would think and I was | going to post something very similar. At least we can just | put overlay networks up and ignore most of the middleboxes | out there. | icedchai wrote: | Residential ISP policies on port filtering, NAT, and lack of | IPv6 uptake are also to blame. The average consumer doesn't | care about any of that though, as long as FB, Netflix, and a | handful of other sites load. Today's internet may as well be | interactive TV. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | At least HTTP2, HTTP3, and overlay networks (like ZeroTier or | Wireguard) are opening up ways to have actual peers on the | internet behind NAT4. | richardfey wrote: | The article fails to mention what are these planned improvements | that he had; does he mention them in the video? | Taniwha wrote: | Way back then there were competing visions of what the internet | might be - some were corporate (and somewhat based around | corporate lock-in) DNA/BNA/SNA/etc others were more com ing from | a postal/telegraph sort of world X.25/OSI - in many ways TCP/IP | was an outlier, the fact that it didn't really belong to anyone | had a lot to do with why it succeeded (also they understood | datagrams, and weren't really worried about how to charge for | dropped packets). | | I suspect (I wasn't even close to being in the room) that | freezing TCP was likely a very pragmatic thing, if you wanted to | be accepted as THE internet you had to be perceived as finished, | otherwise someone else's many 1000 person-year project would have | won. | | One of the great things about IP is that it's extensible, there's | still room for protocols other than UDP/TCP, you can still write | something new and better, or a fixed TCP, and install it along | side the existing protocols - of course getting everyone to | accept it and use it will be difficult | tomcam wrote: | That's always been obvious to me. The Web & Net are built on | RFCs: Requests for Comment. They aren't called PRD's (protocol | requirement documents) or something along those lines. Kind of | beautiful actually, that it wasn't as top down as I would have | expected. | themerone wrote: | It would be nice to have more details than,"I didn't think TCP | was finished" | batch12 wrote: | Interesting that the same issues he experienced at oracle are | still happening today and this is attributed to releasing TCP | earlier than the developers wanted. With that said, I can't think | of many flavors of technology that are "finished". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-13 23:00 UTC)