On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:35:39 +0000 Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 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. Even the original authors have revisited and questioned the original ideas. The paper also says something about needing a great deal of system implementation detail to intelligently make the choice of where to place functions. I like pointing that out, because it seems people often miss this part in the paper where the only form of the word intelligence is ever used in the paper. Note, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any particular position about multihoming in this thread, 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. :-) John