[ColorForth] reinventing the internet?

[jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Penn)]

Hi Jeff


> Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
> > 
> > IPv6 is simpler then IPv4. It has extension headers.

What are your reasons for believing IPv6 is simpler?.  It is more extensible
than IPv4 to enable it to support new services, but the stack would require
significantly more overhead on a client.  

IPv4 is showing its age.  For example, it is unable to distinguish between
congestion & delay, it also performs poorly over high bandwidth connections.

> 
> I don't understand why UDP can't be used functionally
> for most things that use TCP/IP.  Why is the
> sorting of scrambled packets and complex recovery
> and timeout mechanisms so important everywhere?
> I want to know more.

It's a matter of where you want to manage the reliable transfer of data.
You can use UDP and add your own mechanisms to manage the connection (as
with as Sun's NCP).  You come unstuck when you try to run over a congested
WAN or LAN which will make connectivity unreliable.

> understand not why it is complex, but why
> that complexity is required in most internet
> apps but not others.

Most apps will use connection oriented services because it makes the
application simpler to code.  Since TCP is support is by default available
in everything from super-computers to fridges it makes sense to use it.

> 
> If UDP works so well on video for instance, why
> is the more complex protocol required so often
> for things that seem less demanding to me?

Alot of work has been put into developing standards to provide management
of traffic on data networks.  Virtual LANS (VLANs) enable devices attached
to the same LAN to be segregated and appear to be on separate networks.
VLANs can be managed to provide desired throughput/qos levels.  Some of
the VLAN traffic may be encrypted &/or authenticated.  Different types of
data requiring different service levels (such as video and ftp) may take
different paths to the same destination network.  All this functionality may
be provided by the switch/router.

> Just because it is a standard that is being
> used on the other end?  There must be some
> valid technical reasons why the simpler one
> isn't used more.  Can you try to educate us
> about that?
> ------------------------
Using IP over a dialup connection is a poor use of limited resources.  Much
more effiecient use could be made of the link using a specialised protocol.

The most effiecient way to provide connectivity would be to use a serial
comms protocol similar to zmodem/kermit to connect to a server.  The server
would provide services such as internet connectivity (similar to fidonet).

A more workable solution may be to use PPP.  PPP was originally designed
for serial connectivity, but can now be encapsulated over ethernet.  You can
also chose to add other features such as multi-link support, encryption,
compression, authentication, & network login through a RADIUS server.
Although this may be overly complicated :-).

Jeff
-- 
 Jeff Penn - jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Demon Internet Dial-Up)

 Connecting via Demon Internet Ltd
------------------------

To Unsubscribe from this list, send mail to Mdaemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with:
unsubscribe ColorForth
as the first and only line within the message body
Problems   -   List-Admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main ColorForth site   -   http://www.colorforth.com