Re: [EME] EME charter

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 13 November 2006 18:52 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjguZ-00070Z-0A; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:52:03 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjgrH-0005hP-4K for; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:48:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjgqv-0003sr-TP for; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:48:19 -0500
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kADIln1E028245; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:47:47 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <>
Subject: Re: [EME] EME charter
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: end-middle-end research group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0915853967=="

The same could be said of NATs, with the same result. Substantial impact
on the Internet architecture that we then spend years trying to
circumnavigate and/or explicitly support.

In both cases, the onus shifts on us to do lots of work to support
others who are making money, IMO.


Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/13/06 1:29 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU> wrote:
>> The real reason is that some middlebox designer somewhere thought they
>> knew better than the person at the endpoint about what an E2E
>> communication was supposed to do.
> I think a lot of what's driving this has more to do with 1) maladapted
> business models, and 2) perceptions around security, actually.  This is
> particularly true around voice where on the one hand there's a higher
> level of comfort with control plane/data plane separation and on the
> other a tendency to solve problems that crop up by dropping more stuff
> into the network (and granted, it's a lot easier to add new things than
> it is to remove or change existing ones).  The enterprise case is somewhat
> more complicated since there's a different relationship with users (they
> aren't customers in the traditional sense) and there's a different
> relationship to the network's assets.  I think that a lot of what's going
> wrong on networks today, at least around middleboxes, has economic
> roots rather than technical ones.  I don't have a clue what to do about
> that.
> Melinda

Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

EME mailing list