Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:48:24AM +0100, Michael.Dillon () radianz com 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