1 / 12

This paper is Misleading

This paper highlights the flaws in comparing IP and circuit switching networks, emphasizing the different functionalities and suitability for various networks. It questions the fairness of revenue comparison and argues for a user-centered approach in determining tradeoffs. The complexity of IP networks is attributed to additional features like VPNs, IPv6, QoS, Security, and access control. The conclusion calls for a more nuanced understanding of the two network types and challenges the feasibility of simulating circuit switching based on packet switching.

jakem
Télécharger la présentation

This paper is Misleading

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. This paper is Misleading Shu, Johnny

  2. Paper summary • Many IP assumptions are wrong • IP is not suitable for some networks • Suggest using circuit switching as “core” of the network

  3. Some bricks • IP network is designed to support multiple services • Current circuit switching networks are mostly service-specific

  4. IP dominates communications • Unfair comparison • Telephone and TV networks around much longer • Circuit switching been sole media • Growth tendency • Revenue comparison not meaningful • Makes more sense to compare transactions or data size • IP has much better cost effectiveness

  5. IP is efficient • Claim: multiplexing not significant as utilization is kept low due to burstiness • Bandwidth is never enough • Circuit switching also benefit from statistics • Bad service is better than no service

  6. IP is efficient (cont.) • Claim: people are willing to pay more to keep utilization low • Should be a tradeoff left to user • Depending on application, predictability may not matter

  7. IP is efficient (cont.) • Claim: similar response time • Wrong definition: should be start seeing something • Circuit switching has higher overhead • When overloaded, maybe slow, but with progress

  8. IP is robust • Without the base of the same functionality, the comparison of the reliability is meaningless • The authors also believe that the edge network will be packet switching dominated • Should compare the robustness of the CORE network

  9. IP is robust (cont.) • Government-mandated high availability of the telephone network does not mean circuit switching will inherently has high availability • Routing in IP network is much more complex than the routing in telephone network, which is a purely prefix decided scheme

  10. IP is simpler • The complexity is not inherited from packet switching. • Complexity is from VPNs, IPv6, QoS, Security, access control, etc. • If we want the circuit switching to be a general purpose network, will it still be as simple as today?

  11. IP support QoS • The difficulty of the QoS support in the traditional IP network is not the technical difficulty, instead, it’s because of the backward compatibility

  12. Conclusion • Most of the comparison between the packet switching and circuit switching are misleading, since the current functionalities of them are totally different • Technically, is it difficult to simulate the circuit switching based on the packet switching?

More Related