[e2e] Multiple TCP-friendly Sessions and Cong. Control in user-mode?
touch at ISI.EDU
Fri Apr 12 13:21:19 PDT 2002
David P. Reed wrote:
> At 12:19 PM 4/12/2002 -0400, Michael B Greenwald wrote:
>> Dave [and other advocates of the strong
>> end-to-end argument] believe[s] that only the minimal
>> necessary mechanism should be put in the routers/kernels and
>> everything else implemented "at the ends". I doubt he'd be
>> sympathetic to, for example, fears about "increasing the
>> number of places to get it wrong."
>> You two can agree on all the facts; where you disagree is on
>> the *criteria* for placement of functionality in the
>> kernel/routers. The end2end argument is such motherhood now
>> that everyone agrees with it on paper (or won't admit to
>> disagreeing with it); now the camps distinguish themselves by
>> whether they hold it strongly or weakly.
> Thanks for pointing out that this needs clarifying.
> 1. The only end-to-end argument I know of is the one discussed in my
> ancient paper.
Actually, there does appear to be confusion on quite a few points about
The following are common interpretation, some of which have been called
'strong' in other places:
- if E2E then NOT HBH (hop-by-hop)
i.e., once implemented E2E, the HBH must not exist
- everything E2E
everything must be implemented E2E if possible
My position is that the paper communicates only one point directly
(which has been called 'weak' in other places):
an E2E service cannot be created exclusively by the
composition of HBH services
There may have been other agendas at work when writing the document, but
this is the only one that I feel is established to readers of the
document. I don't feel that the document sufficiently asserts that there
are reasons for preferring E2E over HBH, only that HBH cannot be
composed to create E2E.
More information about the end2end-interest