>>1.
>>People claim that TCP semantics is not violated if TCP acks are "spoofed", as
...
> You're right, spoofing ACKs does violate TCP semantics. Some folks argue
> that if their intermediate node, that spoofs ACKs, also buffers data then
> you're safe, but they're wrong -- as the intermediate could fail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how is this different from what you say next
> guarantee that your data reached the remote system. This guarantee, however,
> is only for the end system -- it does not say the end application received
> the data (it may never read it).
i.e. how is your "remote system" different from any intermediate in the
way -- you may have a better chance of detecting its failure, but no
guarantees, anyways. The receiving end could well be an on-board CPU+memory
on the network card (for however a bad idea this can be) and go
equally unnoticed.
Maybe we could say some intermediate device violates semantics iff
there is a procedure that deterministically (or with very high
probability) makes it behave differently from an implementation on
the end-system ?
cheers
luigi
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Luigi RIZZO, [email protected] . ACIRI/ICSI (on leave from Univ. di Pisa)
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . 1947 Center St, Berkeley CA 94704
Phone (510) 666 2927 .
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 08 2001 - 17:54:14 EST