Subject: Active networks

From: "Ayman Malek Kaheel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:05:17 -0700

Hello,

I'm a graduate student and I'm currently starting my research, and I'm
trying to get some insight about the future of active networks, how long do
you think it would be before an AN would become a part of the Internet (if
ever), specially that up tell now there is no ietf working group for AN?

 Thanks and regards,
 Ayman.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:44:27 -0400

Ayman Malek Kaheel wrote:

> how long do you think it would be before an AN would become a
> part of the Internet (if ever),

If "active network" means "the endpoints can program the
routers", then probably never.  It's an interesting idea, but
it'd be much too hard to make it secure and scalable.

Also, it goes against the end-to-end principle: keep the routers
simple, make sure the network delivers packets freely, and let
the hosts implement about any more complicated behavior they
need.  IP is all about smart hosts; AN is all about smart
routers.  ATM was about smart routers (switches), too, and that's
(part of?) why it didn't take off: ATM switches had too much work
to do, so they didn't scale.  But an AN router would potentially
be working much harder than an ATM switch.

Mind you, this is not to say that *research* into active networks
is worthless.  For one thing, an active network, by its very
nature, makes a good research platform for experimenting with new
behaviors for the routers; that research could lead to
improvements for non-active routers.  Or you might find a good
proof that active networks aren't going to work.  Or you might
make them work, and prove me wrong.  :-)

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |We want forty million helicopters and a dollar!|
[email-masked]|--"Dinosaurs"                                  |
\================================================================/

---

From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:01:10 -0400

>it'd be much too hard to make it secure and scalable.

Funny, that's what I think too (and I worked in the area for 4 years :-)
At least, not with the building blocks we have now.

>be working much harder than an ATM switch.

That's not necessarily true; if a hypothetical active network infrastructure
was used to quickly deploy IPv6 on all the routers, there would be no
deviation from the end-to-end model, and it would arguably be a good thing.
It all depends on the flavor of active networking you're thinking of (data
vs control plane, modules vs packets, administrator vs user, etc.) There have
been some good survey papers on IEEE and ACM publications the past couple of
years, and the relevant DARPA page has a number of pointers to funded projects
(no, I don't remember the URL off the top of my head).

That said, your comment about complexity is all too true.
-Angelos