Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #23586

Re: Google down?

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/23/2013 1:11 AM, znôrt wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> writes:
>
>> a dozen things that could go wrong between you and Google
>> transiently. The more you learn about how the Internet works, the more
>> surprised you become that it hasn't all fallen to pieces yet.
>
> that's by design. it's supposed to be a reliable network built upon
> unreliable parts

Ha ha ha.

A brief list of major networking issues:
1. Traffic in the internet core is routed pretty much by "hot 
potato"--give it to somebody else as fast as possible.
2. The routing algorithms we use (in BGP) are not guaranteed to have a 
nice fixed point solution.
3. To route packets at current speeds, you can do about 2 memory lookups 
to figure out how to route a packet based on an arbitrary IP address prefix.
4. We ran out of IPv4 address space, and we're still not IPv6-compatible 
everywhere. Solution? Put entire ISPs under a single NAT...
5. TCP has congestion control mechanisms, but these can cause 
problematic jank in streaming video. So every streaming video defines 
its own variant protocol without congestion control. (Netflix is one of 
the biggest threats to the Internet!)
6. Underlying control mechanisms on the Internet are not authenticated 
in any way. This allows, for example, Pakistan to accidentally kill 
worldwide access to Youtube.

Reliability was one of the secondary goals of TCP, but it was not the 
primary goal. But TCP is not the internet; many of the most vital 
components of the Internet explicitly eschew TCP.

I reiterate, the more you know about how the Internet works--about all 
of the jumbled lottery of protocol acronyms--the more surprised you are 
that it works at all. This is a belief that has been explicitly stated 
to me by several professional network researchers.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Google down? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-04-22 15:35 -0700
  Re: Google down? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-22 16:16 -0700
    Re: Google down? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-22 16:25 -0700
      Re: Google down? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-04-22 17:39 -0700
        Re: Google down? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-22 18:07 -0700
          Re: Google down? lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-04-23 08:42 +0100
            Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-23 22:23 -0400
              Re: Google down? lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-04-24 08:44 +0100
                Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-26 22:20 -0400
        Re: Google down? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-04-22 20:22 -0500
          Re: Google down? x@x.com (znôrt) - 2013-04-23 08:11 +0200
            Re: Google down? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-04-23 09:34 -0500
              Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-23 22:21 -0400
          Re: Google down? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-04-23 12:07 -0700
        Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-22 21:38 -0400
          Re: Google down? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2013-04-23 14:37 +0200
            Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-23 22:27 -0400
  Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-22 19:36 -0400
  Re: Google down? rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2013-04-24 12:03 +0100

csiph-web