[Tsvwg] Re: [e2e] e2e principle..where??....
karir at wam.umd.edu
Mon Jun 4 07:42:54 PDT 2001
I think I agree with your distinction between breaking and violating e2e
this lets use keep the e2e principle in our minds as an idea but
still if no otherway is possible then it allows us to consider
even non e2e solutions.
not to drag out this topic any longer than it already has...
but how come e2e concerns never came up when PPP header compression
was first developed...:)
this is another example of something that is used almost everywhere,
but is not strictly e2e.
but then again, using our new distinctions once again this would be
considered e2e breaking but not e2e violating as we can alway turn
this off?? (actually I'm not sure if its possible to turn off PPP
this can of worms should should have been left unopened..:)
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> "Breaking" maximal e2e for the sake of efficiency is not a bad thing. It's
> okay to insert a middle box in an application path if the box takes on the
> responsibility for being an end-point in the application-specific path,
> and if it doesn't prevent e2e from occuring. We see this often with
> store-and-forward, caching, proxies, etc. Systems can use the middlemen
> for efficiency advantages, or they can choose to bypass them (you can turn
> off your DNS cache but it would be much less efficient). When it's done
> intelligently, there is a benefit to the application process.
More information about the end2end-interest