On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:53 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been keeping clear of this thread, but I think Phill does remind us of an important point (hence the small change of subject):
I have also been avoiding the issue raised, But the peculiar fact that there is so little can be done at that level in the stack did seem worth mention...
The only scope for innovation I can see in the space is to drop the source address from data packets... And that is not one I care to attempt for obvious reasons even when that is exactly what I am doing at the transport/presentation layer.
On 19-Apr-21 15:42, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
> We keep having people coming along making these suggestions for IPv8, IPv10, etc. etc. and the inventors never once seem fit to ask what is so different about their proposal it can't be done in IPv6.
Back in 1994, it had become clear that deploying new header options in IPv4 across the Internet was in practice impossible, however well they worked in the lab. Extending IPv4 was therefore theoretically possible but impossible in reality. So we started IPv6.
27 years later, it has become clear that deploying new extension headers in IPv6 across the Internet is in practice impossible, however well they work in the lab.
Like multicast, the deployment requires substantial cooperation between commercial entities which are competitors who won't even share their network maps...
How can we expect Internet QoS to work when ISPs can't even be bothered to police source packet address declarations on broadband network gateways?
I do not accept everyone's interpretation of 'end to end' but I do accept that what happens on the network and what happens on the inter-network have to be rather different. Einar Stefferud had a good presentation explaining why this is the case.
Where I depart from end-to-end absolutism is that I recognize the network interfaces as being places where 'different' things can and in some cases MUST happen. I do not want every coffee pot on my network to have full Internet access. That would be silly and break the least privilege principle.
