North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:48:24AM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > > At 12:01 PM 10/13/04 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > >Trusting the source when it says that its packets aren't evil might be > > >sub-optimal. Evaluation of evilness is best left up to the receiver. > > > > Likely true. Next question is whether the receiver can really determine > > that in real time. For some things, yes, but for many things it is not > as > > obvious to me. > > Correct me if I'm wrong here, but my interpretation of this > suggestion was not that we should trust the source to mark > packets but that we should trust our peers to mark packets. ... > > This doesn't mean that the non-evil bit is the only way, > but the idea of network operators marking traffic in some > way to indicate their level of confidence in its normality > seems to be worth pursuing. It seems to be the natural > progression of projects like the selection found at > cymru.com. > > --Michael Dillon ah ... so you have no problems with me marking your packets anyway I choose, right? i suspect that a single tagging scheme will be too prone to abuse and that it will be important to have/allow the source to indicate its preferences. i am reminded of one ISP announcing 128.0.0.0/3 some time back based on the presumption that it could deliver any packet to the correct destination in that range. ... :) --bill
|