<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [e2e] end of interest</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In fact there seems to be pushback from both ends --- we can't deploy end-to-end protocols because major companies own the end-host stacks; and we can't push mechanisms deep into the network because ISPs and router companies own the network. Arguably the latter source of pushback played a major role in the emergence of the e2e philosophy; but now we have equally powerful commercial forces on the other side.<BR>
<BR>
So effectively the only practical mode of deployment seems to be the 'almost' end-to-end middlebox --- one hop away from the end-host but not quite into the network (and the Maelstrom work I presented day before yesterday at NSDI would be one example).<BR>
<BR>
- mahesh<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~mahesh">http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~mahesh</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org on behalf of David P. Reed<BR>
Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 9:13 AM<BR>
To: Jon Crowcroft<BR>
Cc: 'end2end-interest@postel.org'<BR>
Subject: Re: [e2e] end of interest<BR>
<BR>
I personally think that the network community has become frustrated with<BR>
the inability to explore end-to-end protocols because the endpoint<BR>
stacks are "locked in" by vendors in proprietary code.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>