[e2e] Discrete IP

[Daniel Havey]

Oooops, I guess I missed that part about changing headers.  If you are willing to pay the cost, then I guess, who cares.  I don't.  However, if you want other countries to change their core routers then, no way.

It seems like you building your own little Internet, and then installing gateways (or whatever you call them) to connect to the rest of the world.

Again, is your IPv25 feature set so great that it is worth doing all that?

...Daniel


--- On Sat, 9/15/12, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [e2e] Discrete IP
To: "Detlef Bosau" <detlef.bosau at web.de>
Cc: end2end-interest at postel.org
Date: Saturday, September 15, 2012, 6:57 AM



On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau at web.de> wrote:

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 Internet.



Your mistake here is the illusion that you can take this decision for others. 
For example me, I want to use IPv9 in my country and for this I am ready to pay the following processing cost for each packet:


IPv4 packet comes in.
I remove the header.
I replace it with a IPv9 header.
I route the packet. 
(and vice versa)

Details are in the paper (presented in the original post). This is just an example of what I want to do... Who can say no and why?




 





    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

------------------------------------------------------------------






-- 
http://www.content-based-science.org