diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/blog/20220212-tcp-ip-architecture.md | 18 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/blog/20220212-tcp-ip-architecture.md b/content/en/blog/20220212-tcp-ip-architecture.md index b2b81ca..6eb0d3b 100644 --- a/content/en/blog/20220212-tcp-ip-architecture.md +++ b/content/en/blog/20220212-tcp-ip-architecture.md @@ -158,7 +158,8 @@ Ethernet that is an Ethertype, so a _length_ field in the IP header is used (both IPv4 as IPv6). A Layer 1 problem is actually propagated into Layer 2 and even Layer 3. Gigabit Ethernet has an even larger minimum frame sizes (512 bytes), however, the padding is properly (and -efficiently!) at Layer 1 by a feature called Carrier Extension. +efficiently!) taken care of at Layer 1 by a feature called Carrier +Extension. Layer 2: The Ethernet II frame has an [Ethertype](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtherType#Values) @@ -276,7 +277,7 @@ non-standard protocol number in an IP packet will cause any router along the way to just drop it. If even _Google_ thinks it's futile... This is an example of what is referred to as -[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification]. +[protocol ossification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification). If a protocol is designed with a flexible structure, but that flexibility is never used in practice, some implementation is going to assume it is constant. @@ -307,8 +308,8 @@ come. Sander actually implemented [an RFC826-compliant ARP Linux Kernel Module](https://github.com/IRATI/stack/blob/master/kernel/rinarp/arp826.h) when working on IRATI. And we had to move it to a [different Ethertype](https://github.com/IRATI/stack/blob/master/kernel/rinarp/arp826.h#L29), -because the Ethernet switches along the way were also dropping the packets -as suspicious! +because the Ethernet switches along the way were dropping the RFC-compliant +packets as suspicious! ## A message falling into deaf ears @@ -353,11 +354,10 @@ bits", and it's derivatives "What can I take away from this project?". A new architecture was not interesting unless we could demonstrate new capabilities. We were building a new house on a different set of foundations. The reviewers would happily take a look, -but all they were _really_ interested in, was knocking off the -furniture. If there was no furniture for them, there was no -publication or funding for us. Our plan was really the same, but the -other way around. Ouroboros (and RINA) aren't about optimizations and -new capabilities. At least not yet. The point of doing the new +but what they were _really_ interested in, was knocking off the +furniture. Our plan was really the same, but the other way +around. Ouroboros (and RINA) aren't about optimizations and new +capabilities. At least not yet. The point of doing the new architecture is to get rid of the ossification, so that when future innovations arrive, they can easily be adopted. |