64 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
tags: [fleeting, networks, ARPANET, packet-switching]
|
|
created: Tuesday, October 22, 2024
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 385af4b4_Baran_distributed_networks
|
|
|
|
## Paul Baran's concept of a distributed network and influence on architecture of the ARPANET
|
|
|
|
Baran worked for RAND not ARPA and his work predated the commencement of the
|
|
ARPANET. However his model of a distributed network was highly influential on
|
|
the design of the ARPANET and served as a consultant during the initial
|
|
construction.
|
|
|
|
Unlike ARPA, Baran was concerned with command and control and how a
|
|
communication network could be resiliant enough to withstand nuclear conflict.
|
|
He analysed the weaknesses in AT&T's telephone network and proposed a more
|
|
robust and resiliant network model.
|
|
|
|
If we think of the nodes of the phone network as being loci for the transferral
|
|
of data, the phone network was highly centralised. The message would go from its
|
|
transmitter to a central switch which would route it to the intended receiver:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is obvious: if the central switch went down, all data transferance
|
|
stop.
|
|
|
|
In fact this is an over-simplification. The phone network at the time was
|
|
actually decentralised:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This system is an improvement because each region has a switch and not all nodes
|
|
are dependent on the central switch at all times. If the central switch goes
|
|
down, the peripheral switches can still manage connections within their regions.
|
|
It just means that trans-regional messages are not longer possible. Conversely,
|
|
if one regional switch goes down, the other regions are not affected and can
|
|
communicate between themselves and each other. So there is greater resiliance
|
|
but still points of failure - at the central and regional switches.
|
|
|
|
Baran conceived a _distributed_ network as his model for the most resiliant
|
|
communications network. Instead of centralised or decentralised switches, nodes
|
|
would connect to eachother in aggregate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under this system, every node can eventually access every other node through
|
|
intermediary nodes, without going through a main switch that establishes the
|
|
connection.
|
|
|
|
This is far more resiliant than the previous two network types because if a
|
|
single node or multiple nodes go down, the message can be re-routed through
|
|
others.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, by distributing the connections between nodes, the overall transfer
|
|
of data can be more efficient as there isn't a bottleneck of centralised
|
|
switches that can block up at times of high network activity. If one pathway is
|
|
blocked, another route can be taken.
|
|
|
|
The distributed model also opens up the opportunity to optimise transmission.
|
|
For a given node in the network, it becomes possible to find the shortest route
|
|
to another node. This would be very important in designing the IMP nodes of the
|
|
ARPANET.
|