[HN Gopher] How engineers at Digital Equipment Corp. saved Ethernet
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How engineers at Digital Equipment Corp. saved Ethernet
        
       Author : hasheddan
       Score  : 98 points
       Date   : 2024-04-08 10:52 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | What a great story. The spanning tree algo is under appreciated:
       | this allowed people who didn't understand networking to plug
       | networks together the way you would plug extension power cables
       | together,* making networking simple ( or alternatively insanely
       | broken, when people had 400 computers on a single LAN with a
       | rat's nest of bridges and hubs...but unlike the extension cord
       | case, nothing would catch literal fire).
       | 
       | * don't try this at home or work!
        
         | Waterluvian wrote:
         | > but unlike the extension cord case, nothing would catch
         | literal fire
         | 
         | Somewhere, out there, is a story of an overburdened network
         | setup literally catching fire, and it's hopefully making its
         | way to us.
        
           | genericone wrote:
           | C'mon HN, I'm counting on you...
        
         | jeramey wrote:
         | Occasionally people don't understand how to plug extension
         | power cables together, either, especially during times of high
         | stress and low sleep.
         | 
         | Once upon a time, when I was in IT support, I got a call from
         | someone in a satellite office across town saying that their
         | computer wouldn't turn on. A new production had begun and
         | everyone was a bit frantic, so this was an urgent request.
         | After asking them to hold the power switch in for a few seconds
         | and try to turn it on again, I asked them to make sure the
         | power cable was secure and that the computer was plugged in. It
         | was, of course, but the computer still wouldn't turn on, so it
         | was time to jump on the bicycle and ride across town with a new
         | power supply in tow, figuring it would be a quick fix.
         | 
         | When I arrive, I see that, indeed, the computer was plugged in
         | to a power strip. And that power strip was plugged in to
         | itself. From then on, I always made sure to ask, "Is the
         | computer plugged _into the wall_? " Saved myself a few bicycle
         | trips that way.
        
           | freedomben wrote:
           | heh, with power strips that have very long cables, I've seen
           | them plugged into themselves a few times as well.
        
             | Arrath wrote:
             | Like tying a shoelace: the long grey cord goes around the
             | backside of the desk, turns and comes around the front, and
             | back into its own powerstrip.
             | 
             | ..Wait why won't it turn on?
        
           | firecall wrote:
           | I was really hoping for some never before known knowledge of
           | how to connect Extension Cables and Power Boards together!
           | 
           | But no, turns out someone didnt even manage the basics! LOL
           | 
           | There's a reason the IT Crowd have the running joke of 'have
           | you tried turning it off and on again...'! :-)
        
             | jeramey wrote:
             | In all fairness, the person had obviously been awake for
             | over 24 hours and was on their 1,001st cup of coffee. And
             | since earlier in the summer I had crashed the entire ticket
             | scanner network the night before the opening of the weekend
             | festival we had put on by creating a network loop between a
             | couple of non-spanning-tree-speaking network devices, I
             | didn't feel I was in a place to be snarky about it!
        
         | 486sx33 wrote:
         | Not recommended but these bad boys make a lot of things work,
         | and cause a lot of damage! https://m.media-
         | amazon.com/images/I/61A5WvzcgsL._AC_UL960_QL...
        
       | spintin wrote:
       | We need to scrap IPv6 and just add a byte to IPv4 for the
       | internal 192.168.1.XXX address.
        
         | eej71 wrote:
         | I think the great architectural challenge would be - how does
         | one add that byte to the IP header in a non-breaking way?
        
           | themerone wrote:
           | There's a surprising number of people who think you could
           | magically expand the IPv4 address space in a backwards
           | compatible manner.
        
             | eej71 wrote:
             | It would be great if its true! Perhaps its really there and
             | we're all just blind to it? Unlikely, but I'm willing to be
             | surprised.
        
               | bluGill wrote:
               | Unfortunately none of those people have explained how it
               | could be done in enough detail that I could try it. Most
               | walk away when pressed but a few press on telling me it
               | is easy so shut up and do it .
        
               | mixmastamyk wrote:
               | Similar to how it has been done with phone numbers. I saw
               | this done in Brazil for example. You add a digit to the
               | front and put all existing address on 0.*. Short number
               | dials are assumed to be 0.*. Update OS and hardware. Then
               | you allocate across the new digit much later as time goes
               | on.
               | 
               | The thing with phone infrastructure though is that it is
               | centralized. So may happen in a reasonably coordinated
               | rollout. Global internet is a lot more distributed so it
               | would take a very long time.
               | 
               | The open question is, would it take longer than IP6 has?
               | Maybe not. Part of the reason I didn't care to use it
               | early was because of the long addresses. If we could get
               | a five byte address written in hex it would be somewhat
               | user friendly.
        
               | kemotep wrote:
               | Well I don't see how you could do it without upgrading
               | equipment and software to support it. And then to start
               | using the new ip scheme.
               | 
               | Which starts to sound an awful lot like an IPV6
               | migration.
        
             | rini17 wrote:
             | But this was what literally happened. All routers today
             | support NAT and most of them actively use it. Isn't it a
             | magical form of extended IPv4 address space? Could have
             | been easily done in less band-aid fashion instead of
             | chasing IPv6.
        
               | vlovich123 wrote:
               | How?
        
         | firecall wrote:
         | Has IPv6 been a failure?
         | 
         | All I know is that IPv4 is still around.
         | 
         | And without knowing the IP Addresses of devices on my LAN, by
         | home network would be harder to manage!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-08 23:00 UTC)