On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Do you actually have a point to make > > That depends. Are you still of the opinion that IPv6 will, in our lifetimes, > become ubiquitously deployed, thereby restoring us to a world of transparent > end-end, or do you think we should acknowledge that that's not going to > happen, and start to think about how to design for a permanently mixed > Internet - and actually have that model in mind when doing protocol work? Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly doesn't look good for end-to-end transparency. But unlike 10 years ago, today there's a widespread understanding of the problems caused by lack of transparency, and much less denial about it. The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly everybody who routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the architecture and alter the traffic to optimize for his/her specific circumstances - and the end users and their wide variety of applications just have to cope with the resulting brain damage. (Admittedly there's a wide variation in _how much_ these people think it's okay to mess with transparency.) But I am not sure that that's the fault of the current Internet architecture, or that a different architecture would fare better. I think it's fairly inherent in that people can always understand their specific circumstances better than they can see the big picture, and that most of the world's economies are biased toward short-term thinking (and thus, hill climbing / dead ends). Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf