[Tsvwg] Re: [e2e] e2e principle..where??....
day at std.com
Wed Jun 6 10:22:44 PDT 2001
At 11:59 -0400 6/5/01, Manish Karir wrote:
>I think this is where I'm confused, apparently people have no
>problems with caches(or proxies when they are used a caches).
>However, caching proxies do the same thing...they terminate TCP connection
>from client to them and then build another one from them to server(on cache
>miss)... therefore they too are not e2e.
>Infact TCP connection splitting is as common in todays networks as caches
>are...but no one seems to be protesting cache deployment??
Someone pointed out an aspect of this in a latter message but let me
make the point here: User - cache connection and a user - website
connection are indeed, as you point out, the same thing. But the
cache to website connection is a different application protocol with
different uses. All 3 are e2e. But the user to cache to website is
not e2e any more than a telnet connection to an application to an FTP
client that then moves a file.
>But I think what really answers my question is what somebody said in an
>email..."if something is e2e that does'nt necessarily make it good...and
>if something is not e2e that does'nt necessarily make it bad..."
>basically e2e is but ONE argument in system design, it is quite
>likely that other factors can outweigh e2e arguments...
Correct. And while not often, one person's end is another's
intermediate, i.e. ends for TCP, aren't necessarily ends for SMTP.
More information about the end2end-interest