[e2e] What should e2e protocols know about lower layers?

[Ted Faber]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 11:39:50AM +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > There is a difference between the two proposals, "turn off TCP checksums
> > if local" and "turn off slow start if local," that I meant to point
> > out.  The first only hurts the applications or hosts that choose to
> > do it,
> 
> Oh, you wish. Corrupted data gets transferred onwards; a TCP session
> is just a link in the chain of the life of the data.
> 
> Nothing is truly local anymore.

I don't think that's a valid criticism.  The same corruption could be
introduced by a bad disk, careless human editor, or errant program and
when the data is passed on the checksum on the non-local connection
still wouldn't catch it.  Granted, skipping the checksum on the local
link is an additional error source, but I suspect it's less of one than
a disk nearing its MTBF.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20011012/20bb6004/attachment.bin