Masataka Ohta wrote on 31/08/2019 11:35:
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End
argument:
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.
this is a straw man argument. E2E works regardless of the current
network-based multihoming mechanism or the proposals in
draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming.
validity of which is demonstrated by the Internet, and insist
that something complete and correct is not a solution
but a workaround
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
(6) It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
the problem to a different part of the overall network
architecture) than it is to solve it.
I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to
shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host
level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of
bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent support,
scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e. the problem
space shifts, but is not solved.
> feel free to keep using POTS not smart phones.
Thank you, I certainly will. Conversely, please feel free to use
arguments instead of rhetoric.
Nick
