Interesting People mailing list archives
on the "the "end-to-end argument""
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:12:22 -0400
------ Forwarded Message From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 10:53:51 -0400 To: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>, dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com> Subject: Re: [IP] Like a Swerving Commuter, a Selfish Router Slows Traffic -- Is this another case of PR science? At 05:35 PM 4/25/2003 -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
Dave (Reed), I know that your personal ideology states that the infrastructure of the Internet must be "dumb," but so far you've done nothing to back that up with any sort of solid proof. Your end-to-endian religion is just that: hand-waving and religion.
Brett Glass - I'm not sure where this came from. I'm not sure I should even bother responding to an out-of-the-blue nasty comment like yours. You clearly do not understand what the end-to-end argument is about from the above comments - I suspect you haven't read any of the numerous papers by myself and dozens of others who have talked about in papers, or applied it. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than just presuming that since you have not ever been a member of the protocol design community, you have no standing whatever). So I'll respond in two parts - a tutorial that includes no religion, no value judgement, just the outline of the technical argument about systems design, followed separately by what is, indeed, the tiny bit of religion that I fully admit to. <technical argument> One cannot "prove" a design principle as a mathematical theorem. The value of a design principle is weighed by its utility in the context of whether it achieves its stated benefits better than others. A large number of Internet designers understand and apply the end-to-end argument on a regular basis. There is a well-grounded literature explaining the value of the end-to-end argument, which essentially says that one should not build into the network any function that can be fully realized outside a simpler network. The "proof" of a design principle is that it achieves its goals. Those goals in the case of the end-to-end argument involve coping with evolution in the face of unpredictable applications and unpredictable technology change. The end-to-end aspects of the Internet have (in most people's opinions) shown their stuff in exactly this way. [In some ways this is hardly radical - it's quite similar to the "design principle" of most scientific theories, which says that the basic set of rules should be as simple as possible - we prefer Newton's gravity to epicycles, even though the latter were for many decades more precise and accurate than Newton for predicting the position of planets]. So there's lots of proof lying around: acceptance among senior people in an academic community, experience with at least one massive example where evolvability mattered. In fact the whole "overlay network" community is following the end-to-end principle again, for exactly the same benefits. But underlying it all, the point of the "end-to-end argument" is to force designers to recognize that the goal of a network architecture is to enable the value at the ends - and that often is best done by the end users themselves, or by functionality directly purchased, controlled, or contracted by the ends. Network owners, in particular, tend to lose sight of that. The result is that network owners optimize what they think users want, arrogating to themselves the decision-making power, and in the case of issues like spam or national security, decide that what means they can implement "entirely within the network" is what the users actually want. <religion> Since you clearly are opposed to the end-to-end argument for some reason, I suspect it's because you have a crypto-totalitarian streak in you (despite your avowed libertarian side, which I suspect is only concerned with government control - as a right-wing libertarian, you apparently have no concerns about private - corporate - control of the same sort). You *like* networks that control what their users can do, and think that the network designers and protocol designers know better than the users what the users want. You are entitled to that opinion. I happen to think you are wrong for two reasons: 1) you can't know, and 2) you can't predict what applications or technologies you will have to work with. You are welcome to play god in your own religion, or in "your network" (as when you made the statement that "your" net in Laramie ought to be granted by the government "ownership" the right to connect up your community on unlicensed bands because you were "there first"). I don't choose to own the words or thoughts or speech of those I create networks for, even when I can. If someone can compete and take away my customers by providing better service, that would be great. I'm sure you also feel you know exactly what email services should be provided, and that you (as a network provider) should decide what is spam and what is legitimate. It's a nice simple totalitarian idea. It's your religion. It's not mine. Please note that although they line up, the end-to-end argument is not about personal freedom. It's about creating future choices so that the network design can adapt to new technologies and new applications that are unanticipated. I happen to believe in personal freedom. But even a totalitarian might choose to buy the end-to-end argument, if only to serve the needs of flexibility against future unanticipatable needs. </religion> In your response, you clearly don't understand that the end-to-end argument is a design principle, that it focuses largely on the design problem of unanticipatable future system requirements, and that there is enormous support for that design principle's utility. At the same time, you can't separate the issue of the political role of the network designer from the political role of users. As a network designer, you show a totalitarian streak. I realize questioning your political beliefs is dangerous, so I am suggesting you ask yourself honestly why you think you are smarter than your users, and why you think you need to build instruments of control into your networks? Is it fundamentally needed, in the sense that you can "prove" that external controls and protocols cannot do the job? [which in our original paper about the end-to-end argument says is the rare case when one should put it in the network] Or do you lack faith that your users will be able to find a way to cooperate for mutual benefit without your "help"? ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- on the "the "end-to-end argument"" Dave Farber (Apr 26)