[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sun Oct 25 09:39:34 PDT 2009
maybe - i'm too staid and stuck in my ways to come up with
new stuff, but it worries me
i) that we use simple graphs and
labeling to describe things (wireless) that isnt
ii) there are ways to do content centric networking
(couple of papers comin up in CoNeXT this year in Rome)
mapped into ipv6 which only slightly fly in the face of the
ipv6 address structuring conventiosn (there are always ways
to hash object id's into a bit number space) but that doesn't
address some of the things one might do with time shifting
iii) I'm aware that there are people workin on "fuzzy end
points" - perhaps this is just the mist around the edge of
iv) i'm not sure people take on board what new technology
like multicore do to your OS/protocol stack
or like Terminator does to your code safety/security
and lots more stuff
In missive <4AE45D9A.7030808 at tcd.ie>, Jaime Mateos typed:
>>Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>> Flow labs and end-to-end arguments?
>>> well, I guess what I am trying to say above
>>> is that we are rapdily seeing the sublimation
>>> of the entire naive idea of an "end point"
>>> in network, transport and application terms
>>> so I can't answer your specific query...
>>Do you mean we need to redefine the "end points" beyond the conventional
>>meaning of hosts, but keep applying the end to end argument with its
>>bias towards simpler, more flexible networks; or that we should do away
>>with end to end, and recognize that the new demands/pressures you list
>>above can only be met with network based protocols?
More information about the end2end-interest