Re: Time to kill layer 2

[Dimitri Staessens <[e-mail]>]

Upss. I meant Layer 4 of course ;)

On 04/15/16 08:36, Dimitri Staessens wrote:
> If you killed the user, Layer 3 would stop working...
>
> On 04/15/16 05:30, Chaitanya D wrote:
>>
>> The BOFH way - kill the user and let the network be.... ;)
>>
>> Kidding of course
>>
>>
>> *From: *Carlos M. Martinez
>> *Sent: *15 April 2016 08:18
>> *To: *Ted Lemon;Dimitri Staessens
>> *Cc: *ietf
>> *Subject: *Re: Time to kill layer 2
>>
>> All the way up to the user ? Many times.
>>
>> On 4/14/16 6:56 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>
>> > Of course!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Dimitri Staessens
>>
>> > <[e-mail]
>>
>> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     anyone thought of killing everything on top of layer 2?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     On 04/14/16 14:59, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         This morning I spent an hour debugging the network to print 
>> out two
>>
>> >         class projects that were due. Some points:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         1) My ability to debug the network is better than 99% of the
>>
>> >         population
>>
>> >         2) The interaction of Bonjour, DHCP and auto power saving is
>>
>> >         unfortunate
>>
>> >         3) Things should still work after I have been away for a week
>>
>> >         4) If vendors want to be selling all that IoT gear, they 
>> have to
>>
>> >         solve
>>
>> >         these issues.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         5) I want someone to blame. Right now when the network doesn't
>>
>> >         work, I
>>
>> >         don't know who is the cause. I want one point of contact. 
>> Whoever is
>>
>> >         that point of contact will get most of my networking money.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         One of the biggest headaches in debugging is that 'smart 
>> hubs' are
>>
>> >         not. They are actually very stupid. They make assumptions 
>> of network
>>
>> >         topology that are not true. Another is the unfortunate
>>
>> >         implementation
>>
>> >         of DHCP.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         I don't use SNMP for a simple reason - it is not available 
>> to most
>>
>> >         ordinary people. I want to understand networking for the 99%,
>>
>> >         not the
>>
>> >         IETF 1%-ers.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         All this networking gear is presented to me as black boxes over
>>
>> >         which
>>
>> >         I have absolutely no control (which is fine-ish) and no 
>> visibility.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         What we have today is the product of a historical process. I
>>
>> >         remember
>>
>> >         the days when Ethernet ran on 10BaseT. But I installed my first
>>
>> >         switch
>>
>> >         30 years ago and it has been a switched protocol for 20 
>> years now.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         It seems to me that there is a business opportunity for any
>>
>> >         vendor who
>>
>> >         takes the rather obvious step of simplifying the system.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         People talk about 'IP everywhere' and 'IP end-to-end' which is
>>
>> >         rather
>>
>> >         odd when you think about the fact that virtually every 
>> local network
>>
>> >         uses MAC addresses for routing.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         One of the reasons that IP won against OSI was that it was 
>> simpler.
>>
>> >         Applications ran on top of the IP layer with only TCP 
>> inbetween. Of
>>
>> >         course these days we do have a Presentation layer, Web Services
>>
>> >         run on
>>
>> >         HTTP. But unlike the OSI presentation layer, ours does not 
>> introduce
>>
>> >         extra moving parts.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         It seems to me that if we really believed in IP everywhere 
>> and IP
>>
>> >         end-to-end we would insist that network switches be IP 
>> routers that
>>
>> >         can be managed using BGP/OSPF or at least routing tables 
>> rather than
>>
>> >         heuristic devices that try to guess where packets should go 
>> based on
>>
>> >         goat entrails, phases of the moon or whatever they use.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         What should have happened many moons ago was that DHCP 
>> should have
>>
>> >         become a bidirectional protocol or a bootstrap to a 
>> bidirectional
>>
>> >         protocol. So when a printer joins the network, it 
>> authenticates and
>>
>> >         tells the network what it is. And this is all defined in 
>> one set of
>>
>> >         specifications from one organization, none of which assumes 
>> that
>>
>> >         security is an 'advanced', 'optional' or 'enterprise' feature.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         Instead we have an ad-hoc layer trying to achieve the same 
>> result in
>>
>> >         peer-to-peer fashion. A similar approach works for frogs as a
>>
>> >         reproductive mechanism but only at the species level. It 
>> certainly
>>
>> >         does not work for the individual ova which may or may not 
>> connect to
>>
>> >         the printer it is trying to use to print the kids damned 
>> homework.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         Seriously, the fact that things have scaled thus far and 
>> the 1% can
>>
>> >         get them to work does not mean that we can get to the next 
>> level
>>
>> >         without a serious rethink of the local network architecture.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         The type of device I think we need would be first and 
>> foremost an IP
>>
>> >         router. It would have ethernet plugs on the box and use 
>> ethernet
>>
>> >         layer
>>
>> >         1 specs. But when a another 'True-IP' device was plugged in, it
>>
>> >         would
>>
>> >         quickly negotiate a direct IP connection, oh and with 
>> proper 64KB
>>
>> >         packets. It would also, authenticate, announce and turn on link
>>
>> >         layer
>>
>> >         encryption.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         Such a device would also be a legacy router. It would fake 
>> all the
>>
>> >         signals necessary for a legacy ethernet device to function. 
>> It would
>>
>> >         also be responsible for maintaining the local information 
>> for the
>>
>> >         network service database and intercommunicating with other 
>> hubs to
>>
>> >         achieve a global network view.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >         The net result of all this would be that I would never ever 
>> need to
>>
>> >         install another printer (no, it is not actually necessary 
>> for every
>>
>> >         stupid printer to have its own stupid printer driver). 
>> Opening the
>>
>> >         'printers' folder would automatically show every printer 
>> that is on
>>
>> >         the network or can be woken from slumber by the hub it 
>> connects to.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>