Re: ietf.org end-to-end principle

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 17 March 2016 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85E812D540 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1T_E65HpIys0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85C712D533 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0FA2CCBF; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:29:40 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qb-00ZnEQjTT; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:29:40 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC84A2CC9A; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:29:39 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: ietf.org end-to-end principle
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBBADB78-8A6C-4E45-B9B0-2EDA0CC397BD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <56EA63E3.2070602@restena.lu>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:23:31 +0000
Message-Id: <C7A64EDD-0A3A-4A54-9D2D-4A8E8A2BFB7B@piuha.net>
References: <56E90BF9.4090306@cisco.com> <871189680.1322359.1458113811142.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAHw9_i+yFhJVYvcMLSEgkOkqJjZBsQicCQsi13SaoVQuzxqc8g@mail.gmail.com> <5D6893D1-D61C-490C-91EF-CA5E5C1F484A@piuha.net> <56EA63E3.2070602@restena.lu>
To: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rKOoS5QY78hlKAxTFUjb3q0oIbw>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:44 -0000

Stefan,

This is a really interesting discussion, and probably worthwhile for our perception of where the Internet is headed.

But, before we draw too many conclusions, may I ask what constitutes an end-to-end solution in this space, and what does not? I may be dense today, but it isn’t necessarily clear for me.

Which ones of the following practices are not end-to-end:

* a mirror
* a server that implements some (possibly dynamic) rules on what connection attempts are honoured
* collaboration between the routing system and servers on controlling dos attacks
* a server that has login or captcha procedures, run on the server
* a server that login or captcha procedures, but they are implemented on a different entity where traffic is redirected as needed
* a server that is duplicated or copied in multiple instances
* server(s) residing on an any cast address
* arrangements where DNS or other mechanisms are used to distribute requests to the most suitable or geographically local point
* a server whose function is distributed to a number of nodes (such as a load balancer in front)
* arrangements where the server is run by a contracted party
* the concept of a CDN

(My quick reaction to all of the above is that these are still arrangements that are in the hands of the party that serves information; the emergence of these practices in the Internet is more about the scale of the services than about inserting NAT- or firewall like other parties on a path. But I could be wrong...)

Jari