On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 01:54 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
I expect we could safely say that TCP/IP is an End-to-End protocol
pair, and
though it is a critical part of the Internet, it is not "The Internet".
It isn't? Then what is "the internet" ?
There are at least two other network arguments that can be made to
support the end-to-end principle (and potentially rename it)
The network effect - whether it's Metcalfe's law, or Reed's law, or
otherwise. The network effect, I think, is real. We can say that the
network effect reinforces the upwards scaling of any network, by
delivering much better than linear payback. Thus, it can be argued that
the IDEAL network, is a network that scales upwards as quickly as
possible, for as long as possible. Now, we can compose an argument that
the most scalable network, is an end-to-end network, because it
contains the simplest network core, and thus the most easy to scale
network core. If that argument is valid, then we can say that the
network effect supports the end-to-end principle.
The neutral network argument - this is an argument that I have seen
much more from the side of economics and law. I have seen the term used
in relation to the internet by Lawrence Lessig [1]. Network neutrality
argues that a network should be unbiased to any particular USER or USE.
This would again lead to a principle network simplicity, since any kind
of complexity would either (a) indicate an effort to control the
network internals or (b) allow operators to impose greater control by
taking advantage of the complexity.
Fully describing the Internet requires much more sophisticated
mathematical
logic than simply declaring that it employs End-to-Endness, even though
some of its parts do exhibit end-to-endness which is put to good use
to make
The Whole Internet work as it does.
Perhaps the neutral network arguments in economics would help.
simon
So, we must not do away with End-to-Endness where it is used, or
ignore all
the rest of what makes the Internet what it is.
Cheers...\Stef
At 20:41 -0400 7/2/03, Keith Moore wrote:
] We all know what the end-to-end principle means.
well, you'd think so - but these days I hear it used to justify all
kinds of
things that have nothing to do with its original meaning. I think
it's
becoming a religion - something that is accepted without question,
and usually,
without undertanding.
[SNIP]...
--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel