How would you suppose the application discovers the spoofing? The whole idea
of spoofing is that it is invisible.
Craig
In message <[email protected]>, M
ingyan Liu writes:
>
>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 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 09:39:17 EST