North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 news
Hi Tony, On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:26:20 -0700 Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> Perhaps > this is yet another case where people misunderstand the principle > itself and are invoking it to give a name to their (well placed) > architectural distaste. > Doesn't NAT, or more specifically the most commonly used, NAPT, create hard state within the network, which then makes it violate the end-to-end argument ? Also, because it has to understand transport and application layer protocols, to be able to translate embedded addresses, doesn't this also make it violate end-to-end ? I've understood the fundamental benefit of following the end-to-end argument is that you end up with a application agnostic network, which therefore doesn't create future constraints on which applications can then be used over that network. In an end-to-end "compliant" network, any new transport layer protocols, such as SCTP or DCCP, and new user applications, only require an upgrade of the end or edge node software, which can be performed in an incremental, per edge node as needed basis. In other words, there isn't any whole of network upgrade cost or functionality deployment delay to support new applications, which was the drawback of application specific networks, such as the traditional POTS network. Have I somehow misunderstood the intent or benefits of the end-to-end argument ? Thanks, Mark. -- The Internet's nature is peer to peer.