On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>
Do you actually have a point to make
That depends. Are you still of the opinion that IPv6 will, in our lifetimes,
become ubiquitously deployed, thereby restoring us to a world of transparent
end-end, or do you think we should acknowledge that that's not going to
happen, and start to think about how to design for a permanently mixed
Internet - and actually have that model in mind when doing protocol work?
Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly doesn't
look good for end-to-end transparency. But unlike 10 years ago, today
there's a widespread understanding of the problems caused by lack of
transparency, and much less denial about it.
The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly everybody who
routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the architecture and alter the
traffic to optimize for his/her specific circumstances - and the end users and
their wide variety of applications just have to cope with the resulting brain
damage. (Admittedly there's a wide variation in _how much_ these people think
it's okay to mess with transparency.)
But I am not sure that that's the fault of the current Internet architecture,
or that a different architecture would fare better. I think it's fairly
inherent in that people can always understand their specific circumstances
better than they can see the big picture, and that most of the world's
economies are biased toward short-term thinking (and thus, hill climbing / dead
ends).
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf