Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:56:20 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com> Date: October 31, 2008 11:26:43 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Cc: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split I too ordered a copy of John Day's book. An effective promotion on IP!I'll confess that we had location ID split in DECnet phase V, among its many other complexities. We probably had a fatal level of complexity in our requirements before adding requirements imported from Europe in the guise of OSI. IPv6 seems to have reached a similar level of complexity.
In my opinion, there is sufficient complexity in the network layer to keep protocol experts, router vendors, and exploitative carriers busy for at least another generation. Therefore anything that can be pulled out of the network layer should be.
The ID function can be done by the end system without regard to network layer addressing. Indeed, this is the way most web sites presently work. At the application layer one can think of network layer addressing and the associated routing function as nothing more than an (essential) performance optimization. The identity function can be done on an end-to-end basis using whatever mechanisms are convenient for the application according to the desired level of security. One should never trust the network layer, any component of the network layer, or any organizational entity that operates portions of the network layer for anything other than delivering packets at a suitable level of performance. (And be prepared to bypass them if they don't deliver or if they charge too much.)
Tony Lauck https://www.aglauck.com David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com> Date: October 30, 2008 9:02:38 PM EDT To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org> Subject: Re: [IP] the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID splitOk, Mike, I ordered the book. It better unlock the mysteries of life for me! What I fear is that ANY reimplementation of addressing will be hijacked by the 'carriers'. Heck, it is in their interest to glean as much revenueout of their investments. Unless we the people figure out how tore-regulate their bit pipe assets. Oh, we think we try to do that, but our lovely graft stricken political system makes it impossible to do that and make it stick for even a few years. In the coming years of financial crushwe may be able to find the political will to regulate the pipes. Isincerely hope so. I have no problem with all the value add services that anyone wants to add on top and charge whatever the market will bear, but using the pipe ownership (which because of its "rights of way" being ownedby all citizens) as their monopoly club is just dead wrong for thecitizenry. The Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to separate out all the pipes from the services, but Congress and its creations backpedaled on thatas we all know. Time to try again? Meanwhile I will read John Daly's book on the true joys of NAT!
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split David Farber (Oct 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split David Farber (Oct 31)
- Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split David Farber (Oct 31)
- Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split David Farber (Oct 31)