[156184] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Tue Sep 11 02:06:09 2012
In-Reply-To: <50482E3E.7020309@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:05:13 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/6/12, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You're demanding an awful lot of changes to the entire internet to
> All that necessary is local changes on end systems of those who
> want the end to end transparency.
Achieving "end to end", and breaking interoperability while
introducing a level of complexity and points of failure that noone
will accept, is no good. I refer you back to RFC1925 number (6).
If you had to modify the implementation on endpoints that want to
communicate end-to-end, then by definition you don't have
transparency. The inability to communicate end-to-end with unmodified
endpoints makes it non-transparent, and is itself a break of the
principle.
UPnP is not robust enough either for the suggested application.
The RFC3102 you mention doesn't have acceptance; the concept of
RSIP was not proven tenable, that it actually works or scales and can
be implemented reliably with real applications on real networks in the
first place.
Achieving true 'end to end' with such a scheme would require
alterations to many protocol standards which didn't happen, and there
would be many interoperability breaks.
>
> There is no changes on the Internet.
> Masataka Ohta
--
-JH
