Scott -
Feynman is absolutely right, and certainly a network should enable
future, unknown applications. But your conclusion that end-to-end
locator transparency is a requirement to build such a network does not
convince me.
This said, there is no question that end-to-end locator transparency is
a critical property in the Internet we have. (And this was, after all,
was the point that Lixia and Dave were making.) My point was that
end-to-end locator transparency is not the /reason/ for the Internet's
success, because you could build networks that function perfectly fine
without it. E.g., a network with identifier-locator separation.
- Christian
On Mar 18, 2009, Scott Brim wrote:
I invoke Feynman and the "philosophy of ignorance". The reason you
want e2e transparency is because you do not know what it might enable,
and we want that. We _want_ to have uncertainty about what the future
of the Internet is. We do not know what advantages or restrictions
our decisions will bring in the future. The richness of the Internet
experience has come about because we have given end users the
capability to develop new ways of using it, and somehow managed to
have got out of the way, so far.
Feynman said (among other things -- search for it):
Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve
the solutions, and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave
the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of
humanity, we can make grave errors that will stunt our growth for a
long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so
young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all
criticism, proclaiming “This is the answer, my friends; man is
saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of
authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It
has been done so many times before.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf