This gave me my opening to elaborate on my belief that teaching mental models is central to what we as educators need to do. I managed to quote Rodney Brooks one more time on the symbol-grounding problem. He makes the point that robots can’t use transformer-like LLMs to reliably perform tasks, because LLMs don’t have grounding in the real world of physical objects in which robots operate. They manage symbols (words) but can’t connect those words to real objects.

I believe this is equally true when the objects in question are networks. A real understanding of, say, transport protocols and their relationship to end-to-end security is not the same as how the words written about transport protocols normally show up in a document. Certainly this matches my experience from asking an LLM about QUIC and the Internet hourglass for a previous discussion about LLMs in networking education.

I was challenged on the question of how one builds a mental model of networking, and my initial answer – that it is built up over years of experience – was rightly challenged by Jim as well. What can we teach in a one semester course if that’s the expectation? To take an example of a famously complex protocol, I think it’s fair to expect that a student can learn the broad design challenges that are tackled by a protocol like BGP, while we would not expect them to be able to configure BGP policies for an ISP at the end of one semester. //

We need to teach about how abstracting away the details can lead to later problems, of which the initial design of HTTP over TCP is a famous example. //

we did seem to have something like a consensus around a few ideas: teaching principles and the design process more than artifacts; helping students build a solid mental model of networking; and using a problem/solution approach rather than just teaching the current set of protocols.