Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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 split
> Ok, 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  
> revenue
> out of their investments.  Unless we the people figure out how to
> re-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 crush
> we may be able to find the political will to regulate the pipes.  I
> sincerely 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  
> owned
> by all citizens) as their monopoly club is just dead wrong for the
> citizenry.  The Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to separate out all  
> the
> pipes from the services, but Congress and its creations backpedaled  
> on that
> as 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