Hi Gordon, just a tip to clarify my thoughts:
But the end-to-end idea seems to take us back to a connection - a circuit? - between two end points. Maybe two end networks makes a little bit more sense? And yet we here know that is not the case.
End-to-end means that any end network should have the possibility to communicate with any other end network that wants to allow that.
The number of networks involved. The number of name servers involved. The number of content servers involved.
This is allowed, but not *imposed* by end-to-end. It's end to end that allows to build such complex services... but also to create simple ones.
So a “thing” on a network may be having quite a rich conversation with very many servers out there. It is not simple end-to-end, device to server.
It's end-to-end IP communication and internetworking, on the top of which the ecosystem built services, on levels higher than L3. If this was not the case the DNS would have been a network function and you couldn't have you DNS server at home or in your plant or in a cloud-only provider. The end-to-end communication principle allowed services to evolve, to have the services and protocols we today have. It allows you to conceive and build new services. And two nodes can choose to communicate between them without all the clutter of "many servers out there".
And then your access provider - many provide services only some provide access! — may not be as obvious as you think. You will have more than one. I am not sure how many. Correct, but when it comes to market it has to be stated very clear if one company is selling "access" or "services" or... "fenced access 'service'".
Thanks for your thoughts. -- Giuliano Peritore - g.peritore@panservice.it Direzione Generale - Panservice Servizi professionali per Internet ed il Networking Telefono: +39 0773 410020 - Fax +39 0773 470219 Numero verde: 800 901492 - http://www.panservice.it