Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics

From: Mingyan Liu ([email protected])
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 17:51:44 EST

  • Next message: Fred Baker: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"

    On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Craig Partridge wrote:

    >
    > By this logic if my chance of failure is originally .001 and I add a spoofer
    > with a chance of failure of 0.001, I should not be distressed that my chance
    > of failure has roughly doubled to (0.002)?
    >

    I have a question: if by using the spoofer (or other type of PEPs that
    basically violate the e-t-e semantics) the performance is improved under
    certain conditions (e.g., increased link utilization etc. in the case of
    satellite), then should it be left to the application/user to decide
    whether they would rather use the spoofer and be exposed to higher failure
    probability, or just play safe and bypass the spoofer (assume that the use
    of a spoofer is not mandatory)? or is it that the e-t-e semantics should
    always supersede performance gain?

    -mingyan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 18:27:23 EST