Ethernet History Deepdive – Why Do We Have Different Frame Types?

Re:Ethernet History Deepdive – Why Do We Have Different Fram... by FuriouslyAdrift on Thursday August 22, 2024 @05:13PM (#41324441)

All wifi is a giant collision domain. Also, each segment of a wired network is a collision domain.

What you are describing is more in line with MPLS or Infiniband.

I agree with you frustration. I prefer to design networks that start routing right at the access port or even using an agent, virtual network port, or VPN endpoint at the client or application (like QUIC), but that is very expensive from a resource standpoint.

IPv6 is also another way to get closer to what you are describing.

In my perfect world, we'd move to something like a mashup of MPLS and HIP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_Identity_Protocol)

If want to study something more "routed" and more point to point, look at private mobile networks (5G).

What we don't want is more layers of abstraction... that's making every slow, brittle and impossible to troubleshoot.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ethernet History Deepdive – Why Do We Have Different Fram... by fsckboy on Thursday August 22, 2024 @09:37PM (#41325609)

>Also, each segment of a wired network is a collision domain

huh? where "segment" means where you are using a hub not a switch? cuz that was a long time ago

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ethernet History Deepdive – Why Do We Have Different Fram... by kbolino on Friday August 23, 2024 @10:13AM (#41329197)

If the links are operating at only 10Mbps or 100Mbps, it's possible for them to operate in half-duplex mode (e.g., if the cables don't have all 8 pins wired properly), even with a switch. In this mode, there's a collision domain between the host device and the switch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ethernet History Deepdive – Why Do We Have Different Fram... by adrian_b on Friday August 23, 2024 @12:18AM (#41326134)

WiFi uses a different protocol than classic Ethernet, with "Collision Avoidance" instead of "Collision Detection". The reason is that one WiFi station cannot know what sources of radio interference exist at the other stations of a network, because it may hear only a part of them at its location.

So all remnants of the original Ethernet could be removed from wired Ethernet, which does not need layer 2 protocols, while keeping adequate layer 2 protocols for wireless communications. Besides WiFi, there are also long-range point-to-point wireless links, where directive antennas are used at both ends. For these, there is no difference from wired links, so they do not need layer 2 protocols.

[ Parent | on HN ]