[e2e] traffic engineering considered harmful
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Wed Jun 13 10:25:06 PDT 2001
At 05:01 PM 6/13/01 +0100, Panos GEVROS wrote:
>"David P. Reed" typed :
> Economic history is
> |littered with ventures that lost dominance because they loved control too
> |much. Look at GM, Xerox, Kodak, France.
>of course this applies to endpoints and "intermediaries" alike.
>(especially when the first dogmatically refuse to surrender -some- the
>(freedom of action) the posses in the original Internet architecture)
If there were (or ever was) one or more "United Endpoints" that exerted
control, I'd be more sympathetic to this point. But it seems like a clever
fallacy. A category is quite different from an organized economic actor.
Endpoints seem to be being asked, as a class, to give up freedom of action
for no benefits whatsoever. Did they do anything to harm (economically)
the ISPs that grew rich by making them happy?
More information about the end2end-interest