BCP38 making it work, solving problems

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Thu Oct 14 11:03:22 UTC 2004

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:48:24AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at 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 some time back
	based on the presumption that it could deliver any packet to the
	correct destination in that range. ... :)


More information about the NANOG mailing list