On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Users want applications to just work, but they (and many businessOn 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
>> users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
>> So "transparent Internet access" isn't a commodity. Transparency
>> would be cheaper if there were more demand for it, and there would be
>> more demand for it if people realized how much more utility they'd
>> get out of the Internet if they had it.
>
> <n> decades in, I suspect that if there were going to be demand
> for "transparency" we'd be seeing it by now. If VoIP wasn't the
> kick in the pants that's been needed to change things, it's
> difficult to imagine what else might be.
managers in our "industry") don't understand that when applications
fail unpredictably, it's often because of glitches in what we call
transparency.
However, we are in an arms race here. Every step to improve transparency
will be met by a further step in middleboxes that nibbles away at
transparency. We've been debating this for 15 years; have you seen
any real change in the balance of power?
Brian
Well this is the real issue. I really could not care whether my IP addresses are constant end to end or change on each hop if the packets get there.
What I do care a lot about is being able to work out what my network is doing and which piece of equipment is responsible for any given fault.
One of the architectural shortcomings of the current situation is that the Internet was originally designed to fill the gaps between the networks, the inter-network. We now use the same architecture inside the local network. Only it isn't optimized for network use in quite the same way or at least the home user does not have a toolset that is as powerful for their purposes as the Internet backbone providers have for theirs.
Instead what happened was that network devices that were poorly architected to run under novel or windows or appletalk sprouted IP as a transport choice. And in many cases this was done in a really shoddy way. Filesharing, printers, the rest all hang off the network in ad hoc fashion.
Keith's obsession with NAT boxes is totally irrelevant to the core problem which is that home networks don't use DNS as their naming/directory/discovery infrastructure which is what they would do if they were really Internet based. There is no model of what is 'normal' in the network so no way to detect abnormal situations or the cause.
NAT is here to stay until the last IPv4 address is withdrawn which is 30 years off at minimum. And it will remain even then because there are so many fun games to play with NAT.