Talk:End-to-end principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).


Called "concept du bout-en-bout" in French (cf., just in case someone tries to translate it)

still to be translated for the french edition of the wikipedia...

The last paragraph may be misleading, as the paper linked specifically addresses why low latency, low error correction is better handled by an end to end design concept. Similarly the principle helps explain why some protocols, like multicast, have not been successfully deployed widely into the network, but tend to exist more in application devices.

I agree. The last paragraph is completely contradictory not only to the paper, but the rest of the article. If noone objects, I will change it.

Rrcjab 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the revert on 20 April 2008? New material was a little long, but had some good info. Also, old article seemed sort of one-sided about end-to-end goodness without it. Will re-add edited a bit unless there are objections. Re: adds by IP address

Yeah, why did the additional material get removed? Maybe the wording and formatting could be improved upon but it was good information with references from none other than David Clark, one of the authors of end-to-end, that balanced out this entry.

Why is someone suppressing relevant information from David D. Clark that clarifies the purpose of end-to-end? Is someone so fixed on the “dumb network” religion that they cannot accept the possibility of anything else?

I am alarmed by the amount of censorship on this post. This is Wikipedia and it's supposed to be neutral and objective. All relevant and well cited information should be presented in a Wikipedia entry and the article from David D. Clark clarifying the orginal scope of the end-to-end arguments should not be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the following from the History section; the first paragraph, because it lacks sources and due elaboration; and the second one, because I cannot understand its relevance to the article's subject:

This is sometimes[citation needed] said to lead to a model of a dumb, minimal network with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with dumb terminals.

In 1995, the Federal Networking Council adopted a resolution defining the Internet as a “global information system” that is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on this communications and related infrastructure.[1]

Mbaer3000 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Definition of "Internet"". 1995-10-24. Retrieved 2011-05-16. 

Network neutrality stuff[edit]

I have moved over a chunck on the eep from the network enutrality article. The section needs work to fit into this article.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Kbrose insist on removing this without discussion, here is the section from the network neutrality article. If someone wants to work on it and move it back to the article.... that is if the self proclaimed owner of this article allows it:

- Some advocates of network neutrality argue that neutrality is needed in order to ensure the end-to-end principle. Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his seminal paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network[1] to wit: + * End-to-end connectivity -


A new network "philosophy and architecture," is replacing the vision of an Intelligent Network. The vision is one in which the public communications network would be engineered for "always-on" use, not intermittence and scarcity. It would be engineered for intelligence at the end-user's device, not in the network. And the network would be engineered simply to "Deliver the Bits, Stupid," not for fancy network routing or "smart" number translation. . . . In the Stupid Network, the data would tell the network where it needs to go. (In contrast, in a circuit network, the network tells the data where to go.) In a Stupid Network, the data on it would be the boss. . . .End user devices would be free to behave flexibly because, in the Stupid Network the data is boss, bits are essentially free, and there is no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.

- - These terms merely signify the network's level of knowledge about and influence over the packets it handles - they carry no connotations of stupidity, inferiority or superiority. - - The seminal paper on the End-to-End Principle, End-to-end arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark,[2] actually argues that network intelligence doesn't relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, not for a wholesale removal of intelligence in the network core. End-to-end is one of many design tools, not the universal one: -


The end-to-end argument does not tell us where to put the early checks, since either layer can do this performance-enhancement job. Placing the early retry protocol in the file transfer application simplifies the communication system, but may increase overall cost, since the communication system is shared by other applications and each application must now provide its own reliability enhancement. Placing the early retry protocol in the communication system may be more efficient, since it may be performed inside the network on a hop-by-hop basis, reducing the delay involved in correcting a failure. At the same time, there may be some application that finds the cost of the enhancement is not worth the result but it now has no choice in the matter.

- - The appropriate placement of functions in a protocol stack



I broke out a separate section on criticisms, which used to be the bulk of the "history" section. I believe the criticisms section could still use more work. It is currently more of a position statement than a listing and explanation of prominent attacks. Lexspoon (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I gather that what you're referring to here is the section now titled "Views on the principle". We need to get more balance in the article. Right now it is all fact and criticism. The principle clearly has a lot of support. I've added a POV banner. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


I am about to attempt some substantial editing over the next two months; in my opinion the article needs a lot of elaboration – neither is it comprehensive, nor concise, readable, or well structured. WP:COI Disclosure: I have recently completed a PhD thesis on the end-to-end arguments and spent a year at Dave Clark's group at MIT; but I think that, in all, I have a fairly balanced view on the principle. Mbaer3000 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You have left the article in an under construction state for several day now. The edits you've done so far are not clear improvements (e.g. the new history paragraph is laden with WP:JARGON and takes a long time to get to the point). Each edit in the main space of WP needs to improve the article. I can understand that for some rewrites, things must get worse before they get better. I have copied the current version to your user space where you can work on it until it is to the point where it is clearly an improvement on the mid-july 2011 version] of the article. --Kvng (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just posted my rewrite. Hope it makes sense in all. Also removed WP:JARGON from my earlier editing. Some omissions are noted in HTML comments in the article. I didn't include a criticism, or view on the principle section, for that usually turns out to be subjective and not useful in an encyclopedia article. Mbaer3000 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does the introduction mention NetApp? Unless there's a particular reason, placing this name seems out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree to that concern, there is a comment along with the addition of that piece; however, a proper citation is still missing (and has been for some months). So I'd suggest removing that paragraph. Mbaer3000 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I also agree and have removed it. -—Kvng 15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


I think this article needs to be explained with less technical language. There's a lot of stuff in here that can't be understood even by following links in the article, often times because there are none. At the very minimum, I think a general reader should have some idea of what the end-to-end principle even is. Take for example the sentence that tries to define it: "The end-to-end principle states that application-specific functions ought to reside in the end hosts of a network rather than in intermediary nodes – provided they can be implemented "completely and correctly" in the end hosts." What is meant by an application-specific function? What is an end-host and how does a fucntion "reside" in one? Why should this be the case? I know a small amount about computers. Does "functions" in this case mean a programming function as in a well-defined and repeatable task the computer performs? Is this sentence saying that task carried out by a computer shouldn't be distributed among different computers in a network? There's way too much jargon for only the introductory paragraph.

Fine, let's see if any of my theories about what this is supposed to mean is true. Let's take the example, which should serve as a concrete representation of what is being discussed: "The only way two end points can obtain perfect reliability for this file transfer is by positive acknowledgment of end-to-end checksums over the final file in the destination storage locations on the destination machine." What is "positive acknowledgment of end-to-end checksums"? Is that an overly formal way of saying "checksums have to be used to verify that a file has been transferred correctly in the destination computer"? (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation for "Limitation"[edit]

Hello editors I have found the citation for the section "Limitations" for the article [ [End-to-end principle] ] . It seems to be from this pdf Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aishwarya889 (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like the source of the information in this PDF is Wikipedia itself so using this as a reference would be circular. ~Kvng (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In the limitation part The most important limitation of the end-to-end principle is that its basic conclusion, placing functions in the application end points rather than in the intermediary nodes, is not trivial to operationalize.[citation needed] Specifically:

I found the citation which also provide more important section that can be added in this link

i hope that can be helpful .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bader15 h (talkcontribs) 23:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


I feel that the article has a major scope of improvement in all the sections. The article is very short with incomplete sections. There are some section which has only one line explanation. All this if still exist it is difficult for the article to become a good article. I propose the small improvement in the article by adding end to end argument which the article does not even talk about. The end to end argument is the set of instructions that drive the existence of the functions within a distributed system. The computer network which is a part of the lower layer of the distributed system must ignore the activities that are better implemented in the end systems. If this scenario works out better then the end to end principle in the computer networking works effectively.Stadepell (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Compare with Peer-to-Peer[edit]

See Peer-to-peer, eg. --Krauss (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)