Content deleted Content added
I guess QUIC is worth mentioning in 'history' as a first as well as an example |
identify as tragedy of the commons and link to collective action problem |
||
Line 18:
== Causes ==
The primary cause of protocol ossification is [[middlebox]] interference,{{sfn|Papastergiou|Fairhurst|Ros|Brunstrom|2017|p=619}} invalidating the [[end-to-end principle]].{{sfn|Papastergiou|Fairhurst|Ros|Brunstrom|2017|p=620}} Middleboxes may entirely block unknown protocols or unrecognised extensions to known protocols, interfere with extension or feature negotiation, or perform more invasive modification of protocol metadata.{{sfn|Edeline|Donnet|2019|p=171}} Not all middlebox modifications are necessarily ossifying; of those which are potentially harmful, they are disproportionately towards the [[network edge]].{{sfn|Edeline|Donnet|2019|p=173-175}} Middleboxes are deployed by network operators unilaterally to solve specific problems,{{sfn|Edeline|Donnet|2019|p=169}} including performance optimisation, security requirements (e.g., firewalls), [[network address translation]] or enhancing control of networks.{{sfn|Honda|Nishida|Raiciu|Greenhalgh|2011|p=1}} These middlebox deployments provide localised short-term utility but degrade the global long-term evolvability of the Internet in a manifestation of the [[tragedy of the commons]].{{sfn|Edeline|Donnet|2019|p=169}}
Changes to a protocol must be tolerated by all on-path intermediaries; if wide Internet deployment of the change is desired, then this extends to a large portion of intermediaries on the Internet. A middlebox must tolerate widely-used protocols as they were being used at the time of its deployment, but is liable not to tolerate new protocols or changes to extant ones, effectively creating a [[vicious cycle]] as novel [[wire image (networking)|wire images]] cannot gain wide enough deployment to make middleboxes tolerate the new wire image across the entire Internet.{{sfn|Papastergiou|Fairhurst|Ros|Brunstrom|2017|p=620}} Even all participants tolerating the protocol is no guarantee of use: in the absence of a negotiation or discovery mechanism, the endpoints may default to a protocol that is considered more reliable.{{sfn|Papastergiou|Fairhurst|Ros|Brunstrom|2017|p=621}}
Line 49:
* [[Backward compatibility]]
* [[Collective action problem]]
* [[De facto standard|''De facto'' standard]]
* [[Forward compatibility]]
Line 84 ⟶ 85:
[[Category:Network protocols|*]]
[[Category:Tragedy of the commons]]
| |||