[Tsvwg] Re: [e2e] e2e principle..where??....
day at std.com
Mon Jun 4 21:17:50 PDT 2001
At 18:41 -0400 6/4/01, Manish Karir wrote:
>so with this description a satellite system that uses 2 proxies
>on each end of a satellite link and does its own protocol between
>the proxies is also compatible with the e2e argument.
>so long as the bits comming out on the proxy1---server and
>proxy2--client are the same...?
>the only gurantee is that as you say.."the bits get delivered
>as sent......and the bits are unmodified..."
>so inbetween the 2 proxies compression etc...are all completely valid?
>If as you say, the e2e argument does not say what happens inside the
>network, then I guess the above would hold true....
This violates the e2e argument as we have discussed. Since it is a
hop by hop solution, reliablility cannot be guaranteed; so neither
can the semantics. This is precisely the argument that started this,
i.e. the PTT argument that X.25 did not need a transport protocol on
top of it. My point was that client - - - - proxy, did not violate
it as long as the proxy was up to date.
Any time there is relaying; reliability can only be guaranteed if
there is end2end error control on top of it. Not everything has to
satisfy e2e, SMTP doesn't for example. (and once in a while things
More information about the end2end-interest