[e2e] Reacting to corruption based loss

Cannara cannara at attglobal.net
Wed Jun 8 09:50:11 PDT 2005

It seems supercilliousness is the real solution, eh Reed?


"David P. Reed" wrote:
> I really think we missed the boat by not just proving all network
> components correct.   Errors are really unacceptable, given modern
> mathematical proof techniques.
> Since Cannara believes that all erroneous packets can be reliably
> detected and signaled on the control plane, we are nearly there.   Just
> put a theorem prover in each router, prove that the packet will be
> delivered, and you don't even have to put it on the output queue!
> A bonus question:  if you have two cesium clocks on the ends of a link,
> they will tick simultaneously, so you should be able to send data
> without any risk of skew, right?   And if you reduce the messages to
> single photons, you should NEVER have any errors, because photons are
> irreducible.   So if we pursue reductionism to its limit, there should
> be no errors in our system at all.   It's all "Internet Hooey" - the
> idea that congestion can't be prevented and corruption can't be detected
> are just foolish notions that SONET would never have to deal with.
> Cannara is right, the Internet is a completely idiotic idea, and the
> North American Numbering Plan was all we ever needed.
> :-)

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list