From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 8 08:34:20 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03679362 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zoom.lafn.org (zoom.lafn.org [108.92.93.123]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04D32086 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:34:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (static-71-177-216-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [71.177.216.148]) (authenticated bits=0) by zoom.lafn.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s788SLcW057375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 01:28:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bc979@lafn.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: TCP/IP on the way out? From: Doug Hardie In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 01:28:20 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <94DD6882-7A24-443B-85BF-090416562120@lafn.org> References: To: Odhiambo Washington X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98 at zoom.lafn.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 08:34:20 -0000 On 8 August 2014, at 00:00, Odhiambo Washington = wrote: > I trust that all is well with everyone. >=20 > I have seen this article which sounds much like a dream, but seems = true. >=20 > = http://www.networkworld.com/article/2459286/why-tcp/why-tcp/ip-is-on-the-w= ay-out.html >=20 > I'd love to hear the views of those who understand the network stack. A quick reading indicates that the protocol is almost identical to the = IMP protocol used by ARPANET. It is more efficient of bandwidth and = redundant paths. However, TCP/IP won out simply because it is a very = simple protocol that works well and can be easily implemented in very = small devices. What the article doesn't address is the path = determination process. That is where the bulk of the code and overhead = will be found. ARPANET used a static network structure that required = re-loading of all IMPs when the network changed in order to keep the = overhead down to something manageable. IPv6 is somewhat of a compromise = in that area, but it still incurs significantly more overhead than IPv4. = IPX was much worse yet. We never could get a LAN with 100 workstations = to be useable, where we could easily put 200 on a LAN using IPv4.