As per Relevance of the word communication, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Poorer
Request for Comments: 1216 Almanac
Prof.
Miskatonic
1 April 1991
Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm
Status of this
This memo proposes a new standard paradigm for the
Activities Board (IAB) standardization track. Distribution of
memo is unlimited
1.
The history of computer communication contains many examples
efforts to align the capabilities of processors to that
communication media. Packet switching is the classic case of
careful tradeoff between the costs of memory, processing,
communications bandwidth
With all of the attention and publicity focused on gigabit networks
not much notice has been given to small and largely unfunded
efforts which are studying innovative approaches for dealing
technical issues within the constraints of economic science.
memo defines one such paradigm
2. Contemporary Network
Recent cost estimates predict a continuing decline in the cost
processing, memory, and communication. One recent projection put
decline for $/bit and $/MIP at 99% per decade and put the decline
$/bps at 90% per decade. Scalable parallel processor designs
accelerate the cost declines for CPU and memory, but no
accelerated decline should be expected in the cost of communications
Such a decline would imply eventual declines in the cost of 56
service used for voice, resulting in a negative rate of return
telecommunications carriers, an unlikely eventuality even if free
market forces are carried to their logical extreme
Increases in processing power create additional demand
communications bandwidth, but do nothing to pay for it. While
will sell no paradigm before its time, the 9% difference
particularly after compounding is taken into account, will
the internet community unless a paradigm shift takes place
Richard & Kynikos [Page 1]
RFC 1216 Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts April 1991
3. The ULS Paradigm
The ULS paradigm shift breaks the downward spiral by concentrating
end-to-end datagrams and virtual circuit services operating in
.01 uGbps region, namely Ultra Low Speed networking
However
"The worlds best technological paradigm shifts are useless
they (a) are economically viable, (b) have clear applicability, (c
are technically feasible."
--Milton John in "Paradigms Lost
3.1 Economic
Cost projections indicate that individual ULS circuits can
provided at a cost of <$.03/month due to the unusually
multiplexing that will be possible on Gbit links. The 10
bandwidth of existing optical fibers will be able to support on
order of 1 TUser, handling population growth, and even
growth, for some time. Moreover, if $.03/month is a
barrier to entry, substantial discounts appear to be
feasible
3.2 Clear
A fundamental principle of networking is that network speed
match the application. We have identified a number of
applications that are matched to ULS technology. Below we itemize
few of these, but we provide a brief description for only the first
the match for the others should be equally obvious
- Low priority facsimile: A large percentage of documents and
are sent via facsimile not because they need sub-minute delivery
but because they carry signatures or graphics. In these cases,
three-hour delivery (comparable to the value reliably achieved
many of today's packet-based email systems) is sufficient.
proper compression, this delivery time can be achieved over
ULSnet
- Real time data (e.g., tracking glaciers
- US postal
- Contracting for
To be truly viable, ULS networking must scale, and indeed it does
Richard & Kynikos [Page 2]
RFC 1216 Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts April 1991
With some effort, we envision extending the technology to
extremely-low-speed regime. Applications that scale from the
applications above are
- Real time data (e.g., gravity wave detectors
- Italian postal
- Congressional budget
3.3 Technical
The hardware issues are well in hand. The remaining issues
protocol related. To examine them, we must extrapolate backward
some well known networking principles
"Gigabit networks require new protocols."
The clear inference here is that ULS will require old protocols,
as we recede into the future, we should expect the following
ULS will require minimal development. Although we may need
in storage technology to recover the software from old media such
decayed magnetic dump tapes, paper tape, and partially recycled
decks, this effort will be more than offset by the savings
ULS protocols will be well documented, amenable to verification,
suitable for MSI implementation in Silicon, or even Germanium
relays. In particular, the alternating bit protocol [1] is a
contender
"Bad news travel fast."
Therefore, ULS gives preferential treatment to good news. While
will delay the delivery of bills, notices from
condominiums, and contest announcements, it will also
immediate productivity gains on several mailing lists
3.4 Problems Requiring
ULS is not without problems
Some other well-known protocol suites are well ahead of ULS
exploring the desired performance operating point. We note
concern about the dearth of domestic (U.S.-based) research
development in this important area. This is particularly
in light of the level of work now underway in other countries
Efficiency is a problem
Richard & Kynikos [Page 3]
RFC 1216 Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts April 1991
- All ULS protocols incorporate slow-start
- Lower data rates mean fewer errors
- Whereas modern protocols use 32 bit sequence numbers
acknowledgment fields, etc., ULS headers can be quite small (1
sequence numbers for the alternating-bit protocol). Thus
header/data ratio shrinks
The net result is "creeping efficiency" which tends to push us
from the proper ULS operating point. While we have no
solution, there are several promising palliatives
- Forward Error Insertion (FEI
- Negative window scaling
- New protocol
- Multiple presentation
4.
The road to Ultra Low Speed (ULS) technology is long, slow, and easy
REFERENCES and
[1] Lynch, W. "Reliable full-duplex file transmission over half
duplex telephone lines", CACM, pp. 407-410, June 1968.
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Authors'
Dr. Poorer
Almanac
Center against
Campo Imperatore,
EMail:
Prof.
Miskatonic
Arkham, MA
Email: Kynikos@Cthulu.Miskatonic.
Richard & Kynikos [Page 4]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
