Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 22 August 2019 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0AD120110 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 SOhKlQWqmuk4 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6418712004C for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15681 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2019 00:15:26 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 22 Aug 2019 00:15:26 -0000
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> <10708d7b-a4bc-f9d8-a644-7c5617f5ebf3@gont.com.ar> <CAPTMOtLyiUpi4L+7TpLePvm=JtpEnw-Yv1NCKvO63_HK2jFnCA@mail.gmail.com> <447e5dae-2ae9-b9fe-baa2-111c028d3b68@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAOj+MMH=wb+v137TvQkZ+KxaBobA8qYmvoHkFzEgi9-PP-Lqxg@mail.gmail.com> <df102b3b-d337-8852-c5dc-f7aa4f479d77@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAF46EB5-03AE-495C-A85D-73B3A9B7EB02@gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <ded4f1d5-924b-77f1-90f4-11dc4869a8a7@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:27:34 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF46EB5-03AE-495C-A85D-73B3A9B7EB02@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/W-uB-UP42xI-lc-CLAeUybV0DQ8>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
X-BeenThere: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:34:16 -0000

Fred Baker wrote:

> I'm familiar with the paper "End to end arguments in system design"
> as well. I'm also familiar with John Day, although I suspect I have
> learned more from him than he has learned from me.

Good. So, you should be aware that the essential paragraph
of the paper is:

    The function in question can completely and
    correctly be implemented only with the knowledge
    and help of the application standing at the end
    points of the communication system. Therefore,
    providing that questioned function as a feature of
    the communication system itself is not possible.
    (Sometimes an incomplete version of the function
    provided by the communication system may be
    useful as a performance enhancement.)

applying it for multihoming:

    Multihoming can completely and
    correctly be implemented only with the knowledge
    and help of the application standing at the end
    points of the communication system.

note that "application" of the paper actually includes
transport and network layers of the end systems.

> That said, we don't operate on the end2end principle in the Internet,
> in the sense of the application determining the route its packets
> will take to a destination.

It has nothing to do with the end to end argument quoted above.

> it uses routing protocols scubas BGP, OSP, and IS-IS t > determine the routing of packets without the application being aware
> or involved.

For proof and extension of E2E argument to intermediate systems (not
actually end to end, anymore), see my lecture note:

	http://www.ocw.titech.ac.jp/index.php?module=General&action=DownLoad&file=201904901-2662-0-35.pdf&type=cal&JWC=201904901

the last slide explains how OSPF follows the E2E principle better
than RIP.

						Masataka Ohta