<!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 a world where clean-slate designs are impractical, apparently. I do belong to a generation of researchers who grew up on P2P and overlays --- and who accept the presence of IP and TCP as religious imperatives that must be engineered around. If industry realities confine us to particular philosophies of system design we can stop arguing about their relative merits and simply work with whatever is most practically deployable. Depending on your point of view this is either an excellent thing or the end of pure research as we know it. But I have to admit I don't understand how people can talk of designing the next-generation Internet from scratch when the economics of computer systems are so stacked against any kind of ground-up innovation.<BR>
<BR>
Also - if the router/ISP companies pushed us to the endpoints of the network and now the software companies have pushed us up the software stack --- where do we go next?<BR>
<BR>
- mahesh<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Christian Huitema [<A HREF="mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com">mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 11:27 PM<BR>
To: Mahesh Balakrishnan; end2end-interest@postel.org<BR>
Subject: RE: [e2e] end of interest<BR>
<BR>
In what world are you living, exactly? What about systems like Skype, or Bit torrent? They are definitely pushing the envelope of end to end designs, are widely deployed, and are not controlled by major corporations.<BR>
<BR>
From: end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org [<A HREF="mailto:end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org">mailto:end2end-interest-bounces@postel.org</A>] On Behalf Of Mahesh Balakrishnan<BR>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 5:11 PM<BR>
To: end2end-interest@postel.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [e2e] end of interest<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
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>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>