[156178] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Mon Sep 10 17:43:40 2012
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:41:41 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUtsEckUAtbQMyHB5zJj8ouUXz2DPoiLzy9BpYw3+K74A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
William Herrin wrote:
> In case Nick's comment wasn't obvious enough:
Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an
informational, not standard track, RFC, states so.
It's so obvious.
> RFC 1796:
> It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
> RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
> any more than the publication in a regular journal."
Your silliness, too, is appreciated.
> End-to-end is generally described as a
> layer 3 phenomenon.
Read the original paper on it:
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%20in%20System%20Design.pdf
to find that the major example of the paper is file transfer,
an application.
> we are for practical, operational
> purposes just shy of -never- talking about or using that kind of NAT.
For practical operational purposes, it is enough that PORT command
of ftp works transparently.
Masataka Ohta
