![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.