4 ms·

> IPv4 isn't routing it; AIM is. Yeah, but that breaks the principle of encapsulation. The IP layer has routing that works great, the app layer can take it for

by ovi256 18y ago

> IPv4 isn't routing it; AIM is. Yeah, but that breaks the principle of encapsulation. The IP layer has routing that works great, the app layer can take it for granted. Why should each app re-implement routing? This would raise the cost of entry, again.

xirium 18y ago
> Why should each app re-implement routing? The same was said of Internet Protocol. Why would you want to send packets over a public network with no guarantee of throughput? Well, it greatly increases the connectivity between hosts and it significantly reduces costs. However, it is less secure. Likewise, why would you want to send data via application-level multicasting? Again, it greatly increases connectivity between hosts, some of which may be behind firewalls. Furthermore, it greatly improves the efficiency of data distribution because the reduces the significance of the bandwidth of the initial host. At present, there is some duplication of effort. Some duplication is to avoid proprietary interests. Some duplication allows specific types of data to be handled. Finding and promoting a more general solution would be desirable.
tptacek 18y ago
There is no principal of encapsulation! There is no such thing as a "layering violation". TCP/IP isn't an OSI-modeled protocol. You had it right earlier with the End-to-End Argument. E2E is very meaningful. We shouldn't push functionality into the network that can be handled by the endpoints, because doing that constricts applications and makes the network less useful. Which is why, if applications can shoulder app-layer routing and multicasting, we should embrace that and let them do it. The alternative means getting Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T to buy in to whatever our next-generation app is. Look how well that's worked out so far.

4 ms·

> IPv4 isn't routing it; AIM is. Yeah, but that breaks the principle of encapsulation. The IP layer has routing that works great, the app layer can take it for

by ovi256 18y ago

xirium 18y ago
> Why should each app re-implement routing? The same was said of Internet Protocol. Why would you want to send packets over a public network with no guarantee of throughput? Well, it greatly increases the connectivity between hosts and it significantly reduces costs. However, it is less secure. Likewise, why would you want to send data via application-level multicasting? Again, it greatly increases connectivity between hosts, some of which may be behind firewalls. Furthermore, it greatly improves the efficiency of data distribution because the reduces the significance of the bandwidth of the initial host. At present, there is some duplication of effort. Some duplication is to avoid proprietary interests. Some duplication allows specific types of data to be handled. Finding and promoting a more general solution would be desirable.
tptacek 18y ago
There is no principal of encapsulation! There is no such thing as a "layering violation". TCP/IP isn't an OSI-modeled protocol. You had it right earlier with the End-to-End Argument. E2E is very meaningful. We shouldn't push functionality into the network that can be handled by the endpoints, because doing that constricts applications and makes the network less useful. Which is why, if applications can shoulder app-layer routing and multicasting, we should embrace that and let them do it. The alternative means getting Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T to buy in to whatever our next-generation app is. Look how well that's worked out so far.