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

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Fred Baker wrote:

> Actually, I would argue that the essential paragraph is the first
> sentence of the introduction.

Read the paper. The first sentence of the introduction is:

	Choosing the proper boundaries between functions is
	perhaps the primary activity of the computer system
	designer.

not very essential.

> The paragraph you quote is commonly
> quoted,
The paragraph is commonly quoted, because, just after the
paragraph, it is stated:

	We call this line of reasoning against low-level
	function implementation the "end-to-end
	argument."

thus, the paragraph is the principle of the end to end argument.

 > but the introduction is far more applicable and useful.

Read the paper. The paragraph is in the introduction.

> "The principle, called the end-to-end argument, suggests that
> functions placed at low levels of a system may be redundant or of
> little value when compared with the cost of providing them at that
> low level."

That statement is on something suggested by the principle and,
compared to the principle itself, of secondary importance.

 > But even that has issues; in multicast or
 > anycast, the application at most selects the service,

if you want redundant multicast or anycast service, there
should be multiple multicast or anycast addresses offering
the same service, from which, applications choose the working
ones.

PIM with a single rendez-vous point has no redundancy and
anycast is, as is exemplified by multiple addresses of
anycast DNS root servers, for load distribution, not for
redundancy.

						Masataka Ohta