The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
olipro at 8.c.9.b.0.7.4.0.18.104.22.168.ip6.arpa
Fri Sep 7 17:40:18 UTC 2012
On Friday 07 September 2012 15:23:30 Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Oliver wrote:
> >> All that necessary is local changes on end systems of those who
> >> want the end to end transparency.
> >> There is no changes on the Internet.
> > You're basically redefining the term "end-to-end transparency" to suit
> > your own
> Already in RFC3102, which restrict port number ranges, it is
> stated that:
> This document examines the general framework of Realm Specific IP
> (RSIP). RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end-
> to-end integrity of packets is maintained. We focus on
> implementation issues, deployment scenarios, and interaction with
> other layer-three protocols.
Just because something is documented in RFC does not automatically make it a
standard, nor does it necessarily make anyone care. I refer you to RFC1149.
Although, since you have such a hard-on for RFCs, you should check out RFC2460
- unlike 3102, it's standards-track and quite widely implemented.
> It's you who tries to change the meaning of "end to end transparency".
Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
If the best rebuttal you can come up with is an experimental, unused RFC and a
one-liner that basically amounts to "NO U", I suggest you do everyone a favour
and crawl back into the hole you came from. I realise that it must be a
difficult and slow process coming to the realisation that everything you've
advocated for and espoused is unmitigated garbage, but whilst you deal with
that internal struggle, please save the rest of us from having to waste our
time deconstructing the last vestiges of your folly.
More information about the NANOG