well.. openflow is pretty much dead, too inflexible, too slow. The whole control/user plane split is an attempt of the classical router vendors to keep their proprietary boxes. It adds complexity as it requires to synchronize the state of some controller with some data plane box.
P4 was a great idea, but there's not much hardware that supports it.
fd.io / vpp is an impressive stack for software-only routing. Like all SW-only solutions, it suffers from high power consumption and packet rate variability. At today's packet rates, you always have to ask 'how many CPU instructions / cycles are required to perform this or that function per packet'.
It's much simpler. In the EU, truckers have to do mandatory 45 min breaks after 4 1/2 hours of driving. With the latest truck generation, this is enough time to recharge to get through the rest of the shift. 400 kW charging is sufficient in this scenario. No wasteful expensive H2 or fancy battery swapping technology required.
IQ tests are a bit absurd if one looks at the changing definitions of intelligence over the past century.
Someone in the 1920s/30s would call the ability to solve equations or play chess well as signs of high intelligence. Not so long ago, translation of natural languages was considered a task requiring a good level of intelligence.
Each progress in AI changes the definition of intelligence as we realize that a machine finally able to do task X is not really as intelligent as we thought it had to be.
And today the AI/robotics industry struggles to build a machine that can perform the job of a room cleaner. Beating grand masters at chess was far easier.
I did once fly as a guest with a winch start, and yes it is something. The ascend is pretty steep and the acceleration is powerful. The pilot did not find good lift and we had to land shortly after. My stomach did not like his curving around looking for lift, so I wasn't too unhappy about the short flight.
My late father was a maintenance technician for those things. He hated it when programmers did smart instruction placement to optimize drum timing. When the drum speed was a little off, they called him to calibrate it so their programs would run fast again.
I don't understand the difference to TCP here. If the path is not congested but the receiving endpoint is, the receiver can control the bandwidth by reducing the window size. Ultimately, it is always the sender that has to react to congestion by reducing the amount of traffic sent.
RPC is something of a red flag as well. RPCs will never behave like local procedure calls, so the abstraction will always leak (the pendulum of popularity keeps swinging back and forth between RPC and special purpose protocols every few years, though).
P4 was a great idea, but there's not much hardware that supports it.
fd.io / vpp is an impressive stack for software-only routing. Like all SW-only solutions, it suffers from high power consumption and packet rate variability. At today's packet rates, you always have to ask 'how many CPU instructions / cycles are required to perform this or that function per packet'.
reply