more on filtering

Fri Oct 31 17:34:24 UTC 2003

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

[snip]
> I'm afraid that those of us building actual networks are forced to do so
> using actual hardware that actually exists today, and using actual hardware
> that was actually purchased several years ago and which cannot be forklifted
> out.
>
> You call the network "obviously broken", I call it "the only one that can be
> built today".

It's interesting that many rather sizable networks have weathered these
events without relying on filtering, NAT, or other such behavior.

Even if you're right, that doesn't make me wrong.
Any IP network conformant to Internet standards should be content
transparent. Any network which isn't is broken. Breaking under abnormal
conditions is unacceptable. I am well aware of reality, but the reality
is: some things need to be improved.

This isn't some fundamental law of nature causing these limits. We are
simply seeing the results of the "internet boom" valuation of rapid growth
and profit over correctness and stability.

As the purchasers of this equipment we have the power to demand vendors
produce products which are not broken. Doing so is our professional duty,
settling on workarounds that break communications and fail to actually
solve the problems is negligent. Suggesting that breaking end-to-endness
is a long term solution to these kind of issues is socially irresponsible.

-- 
The comments and opinions expressed herein are those of the author of this
message and may not reflect the policies of the Martin County Board of
County Commissioners.