Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)

Tue Apr 20 01:20:23 UTC 2004

On 19 Apr 2004 22:16:58 +0000
Paul Vixie <vixie at vix.com> wrote:

> [(*) "wierd" could mean streams of tcp/syn or tcp/rst, or forged source
>  addresses, or streams of unanswered udp, or streams of ourbound tcp/25,
>  or udp/137..139, or who knows what it'll be by this time next month?]

Precisely.  It could be most anything and likely will be eventually.
Why not stop the hacks that are filtering, whitelists and rate limiting
and just replace end hosts with dumb terminals, the links with fixed
rate channels and in the network place all the controls and content?
Instead of network service providers we would mostly be a collection of
systems operators.

> inside the headend, or whatever), it's going to get done by the dreaded
> giant merciless monster known as "market forces".

This and the installed base is probably why the above won't occur over
night, but things are veering in that direction.  While end users will
resist many attempts to remove their freedom of bits, freedom of cpu and
freedom of connectivity, what is being designed, or better, re-designed
is a network with a very fragile infrastructure.  This is good for no
one.

The ideas about tussle (D. Clark, et al) are a way to think about the
problems and solutions, but still the difficulty, because of market
forces and installed base, is how to get there from here.

John