From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 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. ------------------------------------------------------- I have been reading your posts on IETF and here regarding the above and I'm curious as to your thoughts on John Day's RINA. It tosses all this on its head. scott
Scott Weeks wrote:
I have been reading your posts on IETF and here regarding the above and I'm curious as to your thoughts on John Day's RINA.
As you give no reference, let's rely on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture and restrict scope only for multihoming. Then, it is true that:
1972. Multi-homing not supported by the ARPANET.
which means current specifications do not support multihoming very well. but, the statement
The solution was obvious: as in operating systems, a logical address space naming the nodes (hosts and routers) was required on top of the physical interface address space.
is wrong, because it is enough to let transport layer identify connections based on a set of physical interface addresses of all the interfaces, which is what draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-* proposes. That is, he misunderstand restrictions by the current specification something inevitably required by layering.
It tosses all this on its head.
If you have some text of RINA denying the E2E argument, quote it with URLs please. Masataka Ohta
participants (2)
-
Masataka Ohta -
Scott Weeks