[136655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 3 20:23:59 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102031809010.54349@murf.icantclick.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:23:26 -0800
To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:14 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>=20
>> Well, it's official - the original end-to-end design principal of the =
Internet is dead, deceased, and buried. Henceforth, there will be =
Clients, and there will be Servers, and all nodes will be permanently =
classified as one or the other, with no changing or intermixing of =
status allowed.
>=20
> Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+ =
years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really =
the only things that actually give a damn about it.
>=20
Largely because we've been living with the tradeoff that we had to break =
the end-to-end model to temporarily compensate for an address shortage. =
Those of us that remember life before NAT would prefer not to bring this =
damage forward into an area of address abundance. In other words, yes, =
we gave up on the end-to-end model and accepted that some innovations =
simply wouldn't happen for a while. That doesn't mean we want to make =
that tradeoff or those limitations permanent.
>=20
> No one is going to check out their neighbors website running on their =
neighbors computer if the neighbor didn't make an effort to make their =
computer a server (by assigning DNS, running server software, etc) =
regardless of NAT etc etc.
>=20
So? That's an extremely narrow view of the potential applications of =
restored globally unique host addressing.
Owen
