At 12:41 PM 7/3/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote:
However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust. intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very Intelligent Secure network is usually a nightmare of unexplained failures and limited scope.
Counter-example: SS7.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
That is a good counter example, although it comes with some caveats. I work with SS7 regularly. SS7 should be simple since it performs a simple function, it is actually complicated and complex. But, since SS7 takes us away from the human-managed "static routing" of the older (MF?) trunk networks systems, it's intelligence creates redundancy and limited failover. Perhaps Clark will create something that is win-win like that... (I assume you are giving this as a "intelligent vs. simple" counter-example, since SS7 is an example of good scale because it trusts blindingly.) John