John Kristoff wrote:
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End argument:
I think it is better to stick with what the paper refers to them e2e as, an argument. The e2e paper is by far one of the closest things we have to network canon and its reasoning is exceptionally simple and compelling. Yet, these are arguments, not laws.
Proof of the argument seems to be easy, see slide 11 of http://www.ocw.titech.ac.jp/index.php?module=General&action=DownLoad&file=201904901-2662-0-35.pdf&type=cal&JWC=201904901
Even the original authors have revisited and questioned the original ideas.
Extension of the argument to intermediate systems (to make the argument directly applicable to protocols used within a network such as routing protocols) and modern layering (the original paper is skeptical to layering stating "it is fashionable these days to talk about layered communication protocols" obviously because OSI layering popular at that time is terrible) should be useful.
Note, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any particular position about multihoming in this thread,
Can you agree that, by applying the argument to function of multihoming, we can get the following: 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. Therefore, providing multihoming as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible. then, the constructive question to ask is: with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of the communication system, can multihoming completely and correctly be implemented? Once the question is asked, it is not very difficult to construct a multihoming architecture to show the answer is "yes". With such questions, the principle is very powerful tool to know the right direction to perform research.
just trying to argue that the e2e paper is a lot more nuanced than is often presented in debates especially since it has often been used to support opposing views. :-)
The most serious problem with such debates is that people just do not read the original paper: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%... and have their own random definitions on the principle, which makes the debates completely meaningless. There are a lot of proofs saying the principle is invalid, using their own definitions of the principle. Masataka Ohta