North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)
At 15:47 +0000 8/10/06, [email protected] wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: Piling on here ... The effort is to infer the intent of a packet based on ancillary data. The twin dangers here are inference of intent and exposure of the ancillary data. The first part is like asking "would I want to have security research done by a company on Glenwood Road or on Shady Lane?" (Ya, know "shady" in security.) Legend has it that one research company moved it's location because of this, or maybe it was a joke that came afterwards. The second part is what ancillary data is exposed. You can require, you can request, or you can assume you won't get the data you need. Sometimes you won't get it because the giver doesn't want the headache of providing it or because the giver is afraid of the ancillary data going to nefarious uses. My point is that inferring intent based on incomplete data is faulty, but it seems to be useable in real life. However, once heuristics get encoded in deterministic algorithms, the results generally are not so good - mostly because the encoding of the heuristics fails. The answer is to include things like RFC 3514, (Note the pub date.) or ancillary data. But the solution of adding ancillary data maybe worse than the disease. This is just one of the hard problems. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Soccer/Futbol. IPv6. Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time catching on in North America.
|