End to End E2E

• The End of End to End?, Potaroo 4/24/2008
• van Schewick, Barbara. 2004. "Architecture and Innovation: The Role of the End-to-End Arguments in the Original Internet." PhD Dissertation. Technical University Berlin .
• Jonathan Zittrain, “Internet Points of Control,” 43 Boston College Law Review 653 (2003).
• Paul A. David -- The Beginnings and Prospective Ending of 'End-to-End'  2002
• Christian Sandvig, Communications Infrastructure and Innovation:  The Internet as End 2 End Network that Isnt, Nov 2002
• Marjory S. Blumenthal, David D. Clark, Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End-to-End Arguments vs. The Brave New World , ACM Transactions on Internet Technology Vol. 1, Iss. 1 (Aug. 2001),
• B Carpenter IETF Information RFC 2275, Internet Transparency (Feb 2000)
• Lemley, Mark A. and Lessig, Lawrence, The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era (October 2000). UC Berkeley Law & Econ Research Paper No. 2000-19; Stanford Law & Economics Olin Working Paper No. 207; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 37. Available at SSRN:
• Reed, David P., Jerome H. Saltzer & David D. Clark. 1998. "Active Networking and End-to-End Arguments." IEEE Network , 12(3): 69-71.
• John Roberts, The Defense Data Network, (1987) ("The DDN has several security features that prevents compromise of user's data. The ISTs and host circuits on each end will eventually have link encryption devices. In the classified portion of the DDN, encryption devices will separate different security levels of classified data.")
• J.H. Saltzer, David Clark, David Reed, End to End Arguments in System Design (Apr. 8, 1981)
• J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark, End-to-End Arguments in System Design, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (November 1984) PDF; in ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(4): 277-288. 1984 Version:
• The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World by Lawrence Lessig [Amazon]
• Conference:  The Policy Implications of E2E Dec 1, 2000 Stanford
• Active Networking and End-To-End Arguments, Comment, David P. Reed, Jerome H. Saltzer, and David D. Clark
• e2e Map, Yochai Benkler
• The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, Mark A. Lemley and Lawrence Lessig
• End-to-End Arguments in System Design, J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark
• Comments at E2E, Gerald Faulhaber  [doc | pdf]
• Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End to End Arguments vs. the Brave New World, David Clark and Marjory Blumenthal
• Brian Carpenter, RFC 1958, Architectural Principles of the Internet (June 1996)"
  • 2.1 Many members of the Internet community would argue that there is no architecture, but only a tradition, which was not written down for the first 25 years (or at least not by the IAB). However, in very general terms, the community believes that the goal is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol, and the intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network. The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as mail or the World-Wide Web. This connectivity requires technical cooperation between service providers, and flourishes in the increasingly liberal and competitive commercial telecommunications environment. The key to global connectivity is the inter-networking layer. The key to exploiting this layer over diverse hardware providing global connectivity is the "end to end argument"."
  • "3.1 Heterogeneity is inevitable and must be supported by design. Multiple types of hardware must be allowed for, e.g. transmission speeds differing by at least 7 orders of magnitude, various computer word lengths, and hosts ranging from memory-starved microprocessors up to massively parallel supercomputers. Multiple types of application protocol must be allowed for, ranging from the simplest such as remote login up to the most complex such as distributed databases.
• Larry Roberts & Barry Wessler 1970
  • There are many applications of computers for which current communications technology is not adequate. One such application is the specialized customer service computer systems in existence or envisioned for the future; these services provide the customer with information or computational capability. If no commercial computer network service is developed, the future may be as follows:

    One can envision a corporate officer in the future having many different consoles in his office: one to the stock exchange to monitor his own company's and competitor's activities, one to the commodities market to monitor the demand for his product or raw materials, one to his own company's data management system to monitor inventory, sales, payroll, cash flow, etc., and one to a scientific computer used for modeling and simulation to help plan for the future. There are probably many people within that same organization who need some of the same services and potentially many other services. Also, though the data exists in digital form on other computers, it will probably have to be keypunched into the company's modeling and simulation system in order to perform analyses. The picture presented seems rather bleak, but is just a projection of the service systems which have been developed to date.

    The organization providing the service has a hard time, too. In addition to collecting and maintaining the data, the service must have field offices to maintain the consoles and the communications multiplexors adding significantly to their cost. A large fraction of that cost is for communications and consoles, rather than the service itself. Thus, the services which can be justified are very limited.

    Let us now paint another picture given a nationwide network for computer-to-computer communication. The service organization need only connect its computer into the net. It probably would not have any consoles other than for data input, maintenance, and system development. In fact, some of the service's data input may come from another service over the Net. Users could choose the service they desired based on reliability, cleanliness of data, and ease of use, rather than proximity or sole source.

    Large companies would connect their computers into the net and contract with service organizations for the use of those services they desired. The executive would then have one console, connected to his company's machine. He would have one standard way of requesting the service he desires with a far greater number of services available to him.

    For the small company, a master service organization might develop, similar to today's time-sharing service, to offer console service to people who cannot afford their own computer. The master service organization would be wholesalers of the services and might even be used by the large companies in order to avoid contracting with all the individual service organizations.

    The kinds of services that will be available and the cost and ultimate capacity required for such service is difficult to predict. It is clear, however, that if the network philosophy is adopted and if it is made widely available through a common carrier, that the communications system will not be the limiting factor in the development of these services as it is now.

• Links
  • Internet Research Task Force (IETF & ISOC) End-to-End