[263] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Should the NREN be funded?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (stev knowles)
Sat Mar 2 23:26:26 1991
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 91 23:14:17 -0500
To: Roy Smith <roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu>
From: stev@ftp.com (stev knowles)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
I agree with Steve that more funding for University research is needed,
but I'm not sure I agree that NFS is non-changable because it is "owned"
by Sun. The reason it's hard to change is because so many things out
there use it and depend on it being the way it is for interoperability.
So many non-Sun vendors have NFS in their OS's now (or have NFS available
via third-party vendors) that making any major changes just wouldn't work.
the common answer i use to this question has to do with checksums. Sun
refuses to add checksums to NFS, for "speed considerations". this causes
other vendors, who simply repackage the reference port of NFS, to resist
changing the code. i understand their reasons. i would be leary of changing
things that "worked" if i did not understand them myself. unfortunately,
there are few workstation companies that seem to really understand the
networking they are selling. this, in effect, causes NFS to be unchangable,
since unless Sun makes the change themselves, to both their product, and to
the reference port, the change will never get made. these are not "major"
changes, but would add significantly to the robustness of the protocol.
things like RPC also include version numbers, to allow for updating the
protocols in a more rigorous manner also . . . .
No one company "ownes" TCP/IP, but you don't see that changing (or at least
not very fast, and not very radically, and not at its core) do you?
i see Van's TCP speed enhancements appearing all around me in new releases.
i see a solid MTU discovery process that, while adding great functionality,
and changing a basic way packet sizes are determined, to be changing TCP/IP
at its core. i would also invite you to attend an IETF meeting, where people
have been talking about IP version N (N being greater than the current
version, 4, but probably not 5, for reasons i wont go into here). to be
honest, yes, i see TCP changing a great deal. but no company is leading this
process along, individual contributors and a large collection of dedicated
individuals, some of whom attend not because their employeers consider the
meetings important from a technical standpoint, but consider it important to
be perceived as to being involved in the process . . . . .
(*sigh*)
