Subject: demand for end-to-end communication?

From: Moter Du <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:31:43 +0800

Hi,

Can indirect communication (such as ICQ, MSN messenger, etc.) beats
end-to-end communication?

We've been saying for quite a long time how NAT (or others alike) disturbs
end-to-end characteristic though it does slow IPv4 address consumption while
Internet grows exponentially, and IPv6 would restore that back with its
unexhaust space.

But, does people really demand that characteristic?  What if they have just
stayed with where they live?

For day-by-day communication (voice calls, video conferences, etc.), the
indirect services seem have offered VoIP solutions without further consume
scarce address space.  I know indirect communication would expense double
bandwidth.  But, what if people just doesn't care?

Moter

---

From: "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:57:48 -0000

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Moter Du
Sent: 13 December 2001 08:32
Subject: demand for end-to-end communication?

>For day-by-day communication (voice calls, video conferences, etc.), the
indirect services seem have offered
>VoIP solutions without further consume scarce address space.  I know
indirect communication would expense
>double bandwidth.  But, what if people just doesn't care?
>Moter

IMO need space for both. unsure about bandwidth implication. users don't
care until they get spiked.

christian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:27:34 +0100

It's our responsibility as engineers to care. You can't
expect users to care, or even to understand why they are
getting poor results. Still less can you expect users to
know that they are being deprived of innovative new applications
because of the lack of e2e transparency.

   Brian

---

From: "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:18:24 -0000

I agree. Users can be recepteive to principles such as RFC1958 "connectivity
is its own reward." :-)

but there is a leap of the imagination needed for users brought up in an
environment of mediated communications services to "get" the  benefit of
e2e.

we should look at what e2e transparency environment offers application /
service designers. perhaps in another place.

Christian

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: 13 December 2001 14:28
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Moter Du; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: demand for end-to-end communication?
>
>