[e2e] Discrete IP
Pars Mutaf
pars.mutaf at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 10:35:22 PDT 2012
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Havey <dhavey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
No everybody do what they wish.
> 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?
>
This question has no meaning. Because:
1. IETF's policy prevents its own protocol, IPv6, from deployment. Because
IETF doesn't give freedom of choice.
2. Saying that IP research is done sounds a bit short-sighted and very
harmful.
>
> ...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
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.content-based-science.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20120915/4bb2ac64/attachment-0001.html
More information about the end2end-interest
mailing list