The End-to-end Argument

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tom Petch wrote:
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>:

In other words: if the endpoints in the communication already do
something, duplicating that same function in the middle as well is
superfluous and usually harmful.

Mmmm so if I am doing error correction in the end hosts, and somewhere along the
way is a highly error prone satellite lnk, then I should let the hosts correct
all the satellite-created errors?  I don't think that that is the way it is
done.

Likewise, if my sensitive data mostly traverses hard to penetrate links (fibre)
but just somewhere uses a vulnerable one (wireless), then I just use application
level encryption, as opposed to adding link encryption over the wireless link in
addition?  Again, I think not.

End-to-end is not always best but I am not sure which law of network engineering
points out the exceptions.

Saltzer, Reed and Clark's paper "End-to-end Arguments in System Design" points
out the exceptions:
<http://mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf>
(starting at the heading "Performance aspects").

--
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]