--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 11:08 AM -0700 Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Strangely, for all the FUD in the above paragraph, I'm just not buying it. The internet, as near as I can tell, is functioning today at least as well as it ever has in my 20+ years of experience working with it.
You must not have used it much in those 20 years. I can definitely say worms, trojans, spam, phishing, ddos, and other attacks is up several orders of magnitude in those 20 years. Malicious packets now account for a significant percentage of all ip traffic. Eventually I expect malicious packets will outnumber legitimate packets, just like malicious email outnumbers legitimate email today.
All of that is true. However, I don't define functioning internet in terms of the lack of these things. I define it in terms of when I try to get a connection from my point A to far-end point B, what is the loss and/or failure rate of the desired traffic. From that perspective, in my experience, things are better today than they ever have been.
As long as the environmental polluter model continues to be championed and promoted on nanog (of all places), the problem will only get worse.
I'm not attempting to encourage the environmental polluter model. However, making making the guy that owns the pipeline responsible for the chemical plant 200 miles away that is polluting the product provided to him by the water production company still doesn't make sense to me. You have to make the chemical plant responsible, or, the problem just keeps getting more expensive. My point is we need to look to solve problems, not symptoms of problems. Transit solutions to end-node problems are costly and progressively less effective over time. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.