[e2e] traffic engineering considered harmful

Richard Mortier rmm1002 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Jun 14 03:29:11 PDT 2001

"David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com> writes:

> 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 
> >control
> >(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.  

The IETF as candidate for such a "united endpoint"? 

(Ok, so I'm trolling slightly there :-) 

On a more serious note, and I've probably just missed/forgotten this
from earlier discussions, how exactly (both as someone sitting outside
the network, and as a user of the network) should I differentiate
between an endpoint, an intermediary and a router?

> 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?

Is that relevant?  

If the ISPs _already_ have the ability to install intermediaries,
_and_ they believe doing so will give them some form of economic
benefit, it seems entirely rational for them to go ahead and install
them.  No-one is "asking" endpoints anything (and why should they?) --
those who own the resource that the endpoints choose to buy are
administering it as they see fit, presumably to maximise their
(ie. the ISP's) benefit.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list