[e2e] new network architecture idea -

[David P. Reed]

Actually, COMEFROM is the correct analogy, and it makes more sense in
this case than it might first appear.    Except for blogs, most network
communications are driven by the receiver (why would you send to some
device that hadn't already indicated interest in reception?)

It seems to me that putting the listener firmly at the center of
communications activity grounds every workable/working architecture.
TCP flows are receiver driven, HTTP is receiver driven, internet
multicast is receiver driven, ... one wonders if hidden in this is a
principle at the level of the "end to end argument" in its generality
and utility.   I tend to use it in my designs...

When things go wrong (black holes, DDoS, ..., even spam and the
blogosphere) is when activities are "sender driven" without regard for
the wishes or needs of the receivers.

But Jon's idea is too good, I think, to be wasted in the chatter here on
the E2E list.   I think some folks should take it much more seriously
than an April 1 note, which I am sure is the farthest from Jon's intent...

Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> well, an _implementation_ would be to use digital fountain/multicast - you join the right group(s)
> and packets start to flow...
>
> but thats just one _possible_ implementation...another (typcially, not called "multicast" but the exact same idea)
> is pub/sub
>
>
> with network coding too, it might need somethign a bit different
> In missive <446F2E1C.9000309 at dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker typed:
>
>  >>Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>  >>> Its that time of year for a new network architecture - rather than build an overlay on IP
>  >>> I reckon the way to build a DOS proof, multipath, resilient network that can function in 
>  >>> low or high bandwidth, fixed or mobile, lossy or reliable, connected or disrupted, topologies
>  >>> is to built the packet protocol over an overlay - so my bif is to rebuild
>  >>> IP on Swarms (initial prototype is IPv6 on bittorrent)
>  >>> 
>  >>> packet swarming systems are nice because
>  >>> i) you go download your packet, so noone can dos you
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>how do you know to go get the packet?
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>Anyhow, for some reason, this proposal reminds me of the brief Datamation
>  >>article, in the 70's during the debate over structured programming.  It proposed
>  >>an alternative to the GOTO, called COMEFROM.
>  >>
>  >>It wasn't until the end of the article that I realized it was a spoof.
>  >>
>  >>d/
>  >>
>
>  cheers
>
>    jon
>
>
>
>