The End-to-end Argument
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

The End-to-end Argument



Tom Petch wrote:
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>:

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 at blueyonder.co.uk>


_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.