Weekly Routing Table Report

Sat Aug 31 11:14:01 UTC 2019

Nick Hilliard wrote:

>> If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End
>> argument:
>>
>>      The function in question can completely and correctly be
>>      implemented only with the knowledge and help of the
>>      application standing at the end points of the
>>      communication system.
> 
> this is a straw man argument.

The text is in the original paper on the principle:

	End-To-End Arguments in System Design
	J. H. SALTZER, D. P. REED, and D. D. CLARK
	http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%20in%20System%20Design.pdf

> E2E works regardless of the current 
> network-based multihoming mechanism or the proposals in 
> draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming.
As the next sentence of the paper is:

	Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature
	of the communication system itself is not possible

which means:

	Therefore, providing multihoming as a feature
	of the communication system itself is not possible

you are wrong.

> Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:

FYI, the rfc was published on 1 April.

> I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to 
> shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host 
> level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of 
> bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent support, 
> scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e. the problem 
> space shifts, but is not solved.

So, you are joking, aren't you?

>  > feel free to keep using POTS not smart phones.
> 
> Thank you, I certainly will. Conversely, please feel free to use 
> arguments instead of rhetoric.

Instead of rhetoric, I argue by quoting from papers, hopefully not
published on 1 April, validity of which is well recognized.

						Masataka Ohta