On networks and circulation patterns

Paul Baran, On Distributed Communications Networks, RAND Corporation, 1962

This post is a small continuation of the presentation on networks and circulation. By identifying the different types of networks one can imagine new ways of organizational principles in architecture. That can be applied either as an organizational diagram of program or as an internal/external circulation system. Each of the different network systems, as presented by Baran, have got both advantages and disadvantages for communications regarding effectiveness and alternative routes. Borrowing elements of these concepts from fields outside of architecture can spark ideas on how one can be more inventive with the way the users of a building can move around on their way to a certain part of it, how long that might take, how many options they might have to reach the same point from alternative routes and so on.
__


Paul Baran (1926–2011) was a Polish American engineer who was a pioneer in the development of computer networks. He worked for the computer science department in the mathematics division of the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research and development organization funded mostly by government grants. At that time the RAND Corporation focused mostly on Cold War-related military problems. Baran thought he could design a more robust communications networks using digital computers and by introducing redundancy.


At that time there were two basic models for building communication networks: centralized and decentralized. In a centralized network all nodes are connected directly and only to a centralized hub or switch. All data is sent from an individual node to the center and then routed to its destination. If the center is destroyed or not functioning all communication is effectively cut off. If the route between a node and the center is destroyed or not functioning, that node is effectively cut off. A decentralized network uses several centralized hubs. It is almost like several small centralized networks joined together. Each individual node is still dependent upon the proper functioning of its hub and the route to it.


Baran suggested a third alternative—a distributed network—"a communication network which will allow several hundred major communications stations to talk with one another after an enemy attack. " (Baran, Rand Memorandum 3420-PR, CH.1) A distributed network would have no centralized switch. Each node would be connected to several of its neighboring nodes in a sort of lattice-like configuration. Therefore, each node would have several possible routes to send data. If one route or neighboring node was destroyed, another path would be available.


Excerpts via: ibiblio