[165096] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Paper] B4: Experience with a Globally-Deployed Software Defined
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arturo Servin)
Sun Aug 18 07:28:00 2013
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:27:42 -0300
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?SmF5cmFtIETDqXNocGFuZMOp?= <jaydesh9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGj4CufXybAKi=RdqUo+Ai=QWfXvMDVrRed4vGHOZWNO8kzg7A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Well, you just made my point.
Just change "cold" for "cyber".
/as
On 8/17/13 9:26 PM, Jayram Déshpandé wrote:
> SDN is not a new concept at all.
>
> Infact since ARPANET days, the notion of centralized control plane had a
> lot of traction. But with Cold war around, It made more sense to push the
> control plane intelligence into individual decision points (routers ,
> switches , et . al. ). Considering the possibility of the commies taking
> down some part of the early Internet, the remaining partitioned network
> could still survive as the rest of the decision points could converge and
> act as independent network snippets.
>
> -Jay.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2013 7:14 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> Hacker will love SDN ...
>>
>> Yes. Traditional SDN is big, flat layer-2 network with global
>> mac-address resolution, and a big fat Java applet managing the adjacency
>> tables.
>>
>> What could *possibly* go wrong?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>
>
