←back to thread

188 points ilove_banh_mi | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
stego-tech ◴[] No.42172794[source]
As others have already hit upon, the problem forever lies in standardization of whatever is intended to replace TCP in the data center, or the lack thereof. You’re basically looking for a protocol supported in hardware from endpoint to endpoint, including in firewalls, switches, routers, load balancers, traffic shapers, proxies, etcetera - a very tall order indeed. Then, to add to that very expensive list of criteria, you also need the talent to support it - engineers who know it just as thoroughly as the traditional TCP/IP stack and ethernet frames, but now with the added specialty of data center tuning. Then you also need the software to support and understand it, which is up to each vendor and out of your control - unless you wrap/encapsulate it in TCP/IP anyway, in which case there goes all the nifty features you wanted in such a standard.

By the time all of the proverbial planets align, all but the most niche or cutting edge customer is looking at a project the total cost of which could fund 400G endpoint bandwidth with the associated backhaul and infrastructure to support it - twice over. It’s the problem of diminishing returns against the problem of entrenchment: nobody is saying modern TCP is great for the kinds of datacenter workloads we’re building today, but the cost of solving those problems is prohibitively expensive for all but the most entrenched public cloud providers out there, and they’re not likely to “share their work” as it were. Even if they do (e.g., Google with QUIC), the broad vibe I get is that folks aren’t likely to trust those offerings as lacking in ulterior motives.

replies(3): >>42173315 #>>42174871 #>>42179283 #
skeptrune ◴[] No.42174871[source]
> Even if they do (e.g., Google with QUIC), the broad vibe I get is that folks aren’t likely to trust those offerings as lacking in ulterior motives.

It's pretty unfortunate that we've landed here. Hordes of venture-backed companies building shareware-like software with an "open source" label has done some severe damage.

replies(2): >>42175688 #>>42176080 #
1. stego-tech ◴[] No.42176080[source]
Which is ironic, because I remember TCP/IP maturing in the protocol wars of the 90s. My Cisco course specifically covered the protocols separately from the media layers because you couldn’t know if your future employer still leveraged Token Ring, or ATM, or IPX, or TCP; a decade later, the course had drastically simplified to “ethernet” and “TCP/IP” only.

Many of these came from companies who created the protocol solely to push products, which meant the protocols themselves had to compete outside of the vacuum chamber of software alone and instead operate in real world scenarios and product lines. This also meant that as we engineers and SysAdmins deployed them in our enterprises, we quite literally voted with our wallets where able on the gear and protocols that met our needs. Unsurprisingly, TCP/IP won out for general use because of its low cost of deployment and ongoing support compared to alternatives, and that point is lost on the modern engineer that’s just looking at this stuff as “paper problems”.

replies(1): >>42199285 #
2. kjs3 ◴[] No.42199285[source]
I remember TCP/IP maturing in the protocol wars of the 90s

Good times. But it didn't matter because ATM was the future. /s

Many of these came from companies who created the protocol solely to push products

Like 100Base-VG? That was a good laugh.

TCP/IP won out for general use because of its low cost of deployment and ongoing support compared to alternatives, and that point is lost on the modern engineer that’s just looking at this stuff as “paper problems”

Welcome to my world...