routing table go boom

Wed Mar 20 02:40:42 UTC 2013

On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Wrong.

No, it isn't wrong.  That's how it's interpreted:

'The principle, called the end-to-end argument, suggests that functions placed at low levels of a system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the cost of providing them at that low level.'

and

'The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of the communication system. Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible. (Sometimes an incomplete version of the function provided by the communication system may be useful as a performance enhancement.)'

> W.r.t. multihoming, neither follows the end to end principle of:

Yes, which is why I said that it doesn't really apply in the first place.  But if one insists on viewing it through the prism of the end-to-end principle, LISP adheres to it more than does the current routing system.

Anyway, I'm done feeding this particular troll for good.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

	  Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

		       -- John Milton