Review of "End-to-End arguments"

From: Tyler Robison (trobison@cs.washington.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 22:45:55 PDT

  • Next message: Seth Cooper: "Review of "End-to-End Arguments in System Design""

            This paper argues that performing various functions at a low
    level, below TCP, isn't a good idea; ideas such as reliable
    data delivery and encryption should be handled by the application itself.
    Many reasons are provided, one of the main points being the end to end
    argument in which a function needs to have the high level knowledge of the
    application itself to understand enough to successfully perform the
    function, and other important ones being that performance gains for using
    low level versions may not turn out to be gains in the long run, and that
    there are various flaws in trusting every point of connection between the
    sender and receiver with many tasks (since low level functions will be
    carried out at every hop through the networks). In terms of encryption,
    implementing it on a low level would require that more parties have access
    to the keys, and that the data is more vulnerable for longer periods of
    time.
            The arguments presented here seem fairly persuasive, and a number
    of good points are brought up, but everything is fairly abstract, and
    there is a conspicuous absence of experimental data. They do give an
    example of how low level checksum checking at each hop caused a rather
    serious problem on a network at MIT, but while it helps express the
    problem, a single case is hardly a proof. Again, the arguments given make
    sense, but some data is needed to be more convincing, especially in the
    section on performance; they talk about how low level implementations may
    promise good performance and not deliver, but does that turn out to be the
    case in real networks, and if so, how frequently?
            At the same time, their points do bring to the foreground
    particular problems that aren't entirely obvious, and their notion that
    some functions must be done at a higher level in order to be done
    correctly does strongly indicate that low level solutions won't always
    work. Overall, the issues involved are important, and excellent points
    are raised, but a less abstract argument is needed.


  • Next message: Seth Cooper: "Review of "End-to-End Arguments in System Design""

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Oct 12 2004 - 22:45:56 PDT