[e2e] common interface: path or node?

[Joe Touch]

Micah Beck wrote:

> Joe,
> 
> 
>>>This implementation strategy leads to a situation in which a widely
>>>implemented choice of forwarding protocol, in this case a particular
> 
> flavor
> 
>>>of IPv4, becomes expensive and disruptive to change.  Cisco is often
> 
> blamed,
> 
>>>but one might also blame the implementation strategy, which encourages
>>>investment in hardware, software and procedures that makes the network
> 
> layer
> 
>>>protocol difficult to change.
>>
>>Alternately, it is precisely the reason the Internet has become
>>ubiquitous, vs., e.g., protocols with more "fluxibility" ;-)
> 
> 
> When you say "protocols with more flexibility," you are presumably comparing
> the IP approach of adopting a generic network layer protocol as the common
> interface to the network to approaches that impose more specialized
> transport layer protocols.  Yes, that is the reason that the Internet was
> able to meet the requirements of a diverse application community, and to
> become ubiquitous.  This much is history.
> 
> I am talking about the current situation, where the application community

> has grown much more diverse, and where the common network protocol, IP,  is
> under pressure to satisfy requirements that are not necessarily consistent
> with one another, and in some cases are not consistent with ubiquitous
> deployment of IP in a scalable network.  A lot of time is spent arguing over
> which modifications to IP would be effective, or would be advisable given
> the requirements of network scalability.  IP has become ubiquitous through
> flexibility - the issue I am raising is whether a network layer protocol can
> be flexible enough to continue to meet the diverse needs of the application
> community, or whether we may be reaching the limits of flexibility of a
> single network layer protocol.
 >
> In other words, is it possible that IP is a victim of its own success?  By
> making the Internet so flexible, it has encouraged the idea that application
> requirements should determine the capabilities of the network, and invited
> new communities to express their requirements.  Are these competing
> requirements now so diverse that even IP cannot satsify them all - that
> perhaps no single network layer protocol can?  If so, we must either make
> hard choices, and disappoint some communities by failing to meet their
> requirements.  Or else we must look for an implementation strategy that is
> even more flexible, one that allows for heterogeneity at the network layer
> while preserving interoperability.  Perhaps a common model of the
> intermediate node.
> 
> /micah

The Internet is a successful message switching system. It is a victim 
typically where messaging isn't the goal - i.e., where circuits are 
desired. It certainly makes sense to continue to augment the 
architecture, it's also useful to consider whether the extensions try to 
make a banana out of a duck, or a more ducky duck ;-)

[FWIW, referring to extensions in generally, not necessarily IBP]

Joe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20040426/7411f753/signature.bin