Subject: Architecture of the Internet....

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:51:52 -0700 (MST)

All:
 
I'm curious whether the architecture of the internet can support the explosion of users -- could you please point me to discussion threads on this topic -- thanks very much in advance!
 
Regards,
 
Rick

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Mar 1999 23:10:35 -0800

> I'm curious whether the architecture of the internet can support the
> explosion of users -- could you please point me to discussion threads on
> this topic -- thanks very much in advance! 

No, sorry it can't.  

We haven't figured out a way to fit C-4 into a packet yet.  

;-)

Sorry all, I couldn't resist.

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Mar 1999 23:10:35 -0800

No, sorry it can't.  

;-)

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:38:56 +0000

It's worth observing that the Internet has successfully scaled
by at least 5 orders of magnitude already. The design principles
behind this are captured in RFC 1958 and some of the references
given therein. Since we are close to 100 meganodes now,
my estimate is that we only need another 3 or 4 orders of
magnitude. 

We have one aphorism from Mike O'Dell "The only problem is scale",
i.e. all new designs must allow for massive scaling. We have one
well understood scaling limit (the 32 bit address space) and
a well developed solution (IPv6). 

   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:38:56 +0000

Brian Carpenter

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 06:53:34 -0500

Wow. Users are exploding? That's horrible....

:-)

- paul

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 06:53:34 -0500

:-)

- paul

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:07:41 -0800

> I'm curious whether the architecture of the internet can support
> the explosion of users -- could you please point me to discussion
> threads on this topic -- thanks very much in advance!
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick

Although we realize that the Internet's expanding user base creates
stresses for the industry, blowing up users is something that should be
considered only in extreme cases.

As noted in the anti-SPAM BOF, there are many who would use a
"user explosion protocol" (UEP) on SPAMers if it were available. However,
there appears to be no way to ensure that such a protocol would not itself
become a tool for SPAMers.

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:07:41 -0800

---

From: vijay madhavapeddi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:41:27 -0500 (EST)

> > this topic -- thanks very much in advance! 

Well, is this not a problem which we expect IPv6 protocol to solve? Or do
you mean in terms of network bandwidth limitations? 

If it is the latter, I think the bit rate is growing at a faster rate than
the number of users of the internet. So dont worry, WE will all find a
way out. 

ta-ta,
vijay

---

From: vijay madhavapeddi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:41:27 -0500 (EST)

ta-ta,
vijay

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:43:31 -0500

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 06:53:34 -0500
   From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>

It's the distributed form of the old Mainframe assembler instruction,
EOI (Execute Operator Immediate).  :-)

						- Ted

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:43:31 -0500

- Ted

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 99 6:47:47 JST

Brian;

> i.e. all new designs must allow for massive scaling.

Right. The scale of IETF.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 99 6:47:47 JST

Brian;

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 17:56:25 -0500

> > threads on this topic -- thanks very much in advance!

The US gov't was kind enough to already solve this problem. All you need
to do is encrypt IP packets - they have been declared munitions and thus
logically equivalent to hand grenades or other similar implements.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 17:56:25 -0500

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:55:10 +0000 (GMT)

> considered only in extreme cases.

Quake deathmatch traffic is obviously going to be increasingly
prevalent on WANs.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:55:10 +0000 (GMT)

L.