[e2e] Discrete IP

Detlef Bosau detlef.bosau at web.de
Sat Sep 15 06:20:44 PDT 2012

On 09/15/2012 06:52 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> Hi Detlef,
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau at web.de 
> <mailto:detlef.bosau at web.de>> wrote:
>     On 09/13/2012 06:38 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>         Hi Andrew,
>         China has IPv6 for example but I cannot talk to them.
>         I don't have to install IPv6 to talk to them. If one day
>         someone uses IPv7 (it is their right), I don't have to install
>         IPv7.
>         The fact that there is a version field doesn't mean that all
>         versions are supported.
>     I think, you miss two basic points.
>     First: There is no such thing as "the" end to end principle.
>     Particularly, Internet communication is nothing which happens
>     between the communication end points and only there, but most of
>     the work is done at the nodes in between.
> This contradicts what you say below. Below you say that you want to 
> avoid this complexity. Here you say that this the way it is. So I 
> don't understand you message.

I don't see a contradiction here. Avoiding complexity does not mean that 
complexity does not exist.

End nodes hardly have to deal with packets. Every now and then, there is 
a packet to be sent or to be received. So, end nodes have any time they 
want to inspect packets, to interpret them, whatever they want. Routers 
in the middle miss this privilege. They may be offered up to millions of 
packets each and every second. So, the effort spent for serving a single 
packet must be kept as small as possible.

And of course, there is a huge difference between a core router in the 
tier 1 backbone, which has to deal with huge amounts of data, and a 
simple soho-box which may well play around with NAT and congestion 
management and queue management and all these funny little things which 
PhD students change the world with, without being noticed by the latter.

Hence, although the IETF cannot make the world run IPv6, our common 
interest is to switch over to one common protocol in the internet. At 
least for the tier 1 backbone or other extremely busy parts of the 
>     Second: The Internet is an overlay network by design. We want ONE
>     common protocol which is supported by all nodes connected to this
>     overlay network. Particularly, it shall not be the intention of
>     the Internet to run several protocols in parallel. Nevertheless,
>     this happened in the past, happens in the present and is expected
>     to happen in the future, however it is not the basic intention.
>     The more protocols you run in parallel, the more complex your
>     intermediate nodes, which do all the routing work, will be. And
>     it's certainly not our goal to make thinks unnecessarily complex.
> What do you mean by "parallel"? Why do you assume that the protocols 
> will be run in "parallel?"
>     DB
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Detlef Bosau
>     Galileistraße 30
>     70565 Stuttgart                            Tel.: +49 711 5208031
>     <tel:%2B49%20711%205208031>
>                                                mobile: +49 172 6819937
>     <tel:%2B49%20172%206819937>
>                                                skype: detlef.bosau
>                                                ICQ:  566129673
>     detlef.bosau at web.de <mailto:detlef.bosau at web.de>
>     http://www.detlef-bosau.de
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- 
> http://www.content-based-science.org

Detlef Bosau
Galileistraße 30	
70565 Stuttgart                            Tel.:   +49 711 5208031
                                            mobile: +49 172 6819937
                                            skype:     detlef.bosau
                                            ICQ:          566129673
detlef.bosau at web.de                     http://www.detlef-bosau.de

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list