[161563] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table go boom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dobbins, Roland)
Tue Mar 19 22:41:10 2013
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:40:42 +0000
In-Reply-To: <51491340.70203@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Wrong.
No, it isn't wrong. That's how it's interpreted:
'The principle, called the end-to-end argument, suggests that functions pla=
ced at low levels of a system may be redundant or of little value when comp=
ared with the cost of providing them at that low level.'
and
'The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only =
with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of=
the communication system. Therefore, providing that questioned function as=
a feature of the communication system itself is not possible. (Sometimes a=
n incomplete version of the function provided by the communication system m=
ay be useful as a performance enhancement.)'
> W.r.t. multihoming, neither follows the end to end principle of:
Yes, which is why I said that it doesn't really apply in the first place. =
But if one insists on viewing it through the prism of the end-to-end princi=
ple, LISP adheres to it more than does the current routing system.
Anyway, I'm done feeding this particular troll for good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
-- John Milton
