Dumb network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A dumb network is marked by using intelligent devices (i.e., PCs) at the periphery that make use of a network that does not interfere with an application’s operation, but simply “dumps” the transmissions onto the network. The dumb network concept is the natural outcome of the end to end principle. The Internet was originally designed to operate as a dumb network.
In some circles the dumb network is regarded as a natural culmination of technological progress in network technology. With the justification that the dumb network uniquely satisfies the requirements of the end to end principle for application creation, supporters see the dumb network as uniquely qualified for this purpose. In reality the dumb network is only one position in a continuum of network design. Its attributes are suitable for the creation of certain types of network applications but are considered deleterious for others.
A dumb network, by design, have few or no network protocols and is not sensitive to the transmission needs of any applications; indeed, a dumb network is completely oblivious to the transmission needs of, or the number of applications that run on it. This simplicity or lack of network protocols can allow for tremendous flexibility and ease of innovation in the development of future network applications. Examples of applications that were not envisioned by the creator of the Internet and are in common use today include the World Wide Web, VOIP, any kind of streaming media, peer-to-peer filesharing, and many others.
Critics of dumb network architecture posit two arguments in favor of "smart" networks. The first, that certain users and transmission needs of certain applications are more important than others and thus should be granted greater network priority. An example is that of real time video applications that are more time sensitive than say, text applications. Thus video transmissions would receive network priority to prevent picture skips, while text transmissions could be delayed with few if any problems affecting its application performance. The second is that networks should be able to defend against attacks by malware and other bad actors.
Advocates of dumb networks counter the first argument by pointing out that prioritizing network traffic is very expensive, both in monetary and network performance terms; also, advocates consider this a bandwidth problem and not a network protocol issue. Their solution is simply to add more bandwidth. With enough speed on a dumb network, every user and application receives more than enough bandwidth to make every one “happy.” The security argument is that malware is an end-to-end problem and thus should be dealt with at the endpoints, and that attempting to adapt the network to counter attacks is both cumbersome, inefficient, and unlikely to work.
The dumb network (and the end to end principle) was conceived of as an antithesis to the idea of a centralized intelligent computer network in which all applications were under central network control. A synthesis is taking place in the concept application aware networks or as they are sometimes called context aware networks. These networks allow intelligent devices to set up end to end applications as in the dumb network. However they are aware of application needs and in the social and enterprise context in which the applications are being used. Thus the network can make decisions on resource allocation conflicts in light of the collective needs of all users and the purposes (social and enterprise) that guide them.
