On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:48:24AM +0100, Michael.Dillon@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 128.0.0.0/3 some time back based on the presumption that it could deliver any packet to the correct destination in that range. ... :) --bill