[e2e] What if there were no well known numbers?

Jon Crowcroft Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sun Aug 6 18:54:45 PDT 2006

In missive <44D614B8.8020303 at isi.edu>, Joe Touch typed:
 >>> oh and I think we should have an explicit protocol for establishing a
 >>> capability to _receive_
 >>> ip packets

 >>We do. It's called attaching to the Internet. IMO, that means you're up
 >>for receiving probes to determine whether to proceed.

 >>This is what motivated my interpretation of the network neutrality
 >>issue, that originally was presented at a workshop about a year ago:


a capability to receive would indicate _who_ you want to receive
packets _from_.

what we have now is the right to be bombarded or not. different.

the problem with many capability based systems is that they require
the sender to get a cpaability to send to a receiver which either
moves the problem to the capability server for the receiver which
means that then gets bombradred (see papers on denial of capbiability
or else puts the receiver at the mercy of a 3rd party (probably
distributed and overprovisioned) cqapability service - i.e. less net

requireing a receiver to control who can speak to them as a
fundamental part of connectivity (I have a paper i might submit to a
hot workshop about one approach to
the implementation details for this if i can get around to it...)
is an altogether more neutral scheme...

 >>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
 >>Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
 >>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
 >>Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
 >>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
 >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the end2end-interest mailing list