Hi, Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution. Where else can blockchain be used in networking? Glen.
Where else can blockchain be used in networking?
Other uses notwithstanding, it should be good for inflating the share price of any network vendor that adds "now with block chain!" somewhere into their product portfolio. /snark -- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal On January 7, 2018 9:26:47 PM PST, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution.
Where else can blockchain be used in networking?
Glen.
agreed this could have potential to be the next "devops" style buzzword On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:38 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
Where else can blockchain be used in networking?
Other uses notwithstanding, it should be good for inflating the share price of any network vendor that adds "now with block chain!" somewhere into their product portfolio.
/snark
-- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
On January 7, 2018 9:26:47 PM PST, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution.
Where else can blockchain be used in networking?
Glen.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution.
Hi Glen, I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI. Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 2018-01-08 12:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI.
Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?
Regards, Bill Herrin
There's probably some potential in using a blockchain for things like configuration management. You can authenticate who made what change and when (granted, we can kinda-sorta do this already with the various authentication and logging mechanisms, but the blockchain is an immutable, permanent record inherently required for the system to work at all). That immutable, sequenced chain of events would let you do things like "make my test environment look like production did last Thursday at 9AM" trivially by reading the blockchain up until that timestamp, then running a fork of the chain for the new test environment to track its own changes during testing. Or when you know you did something 2 months ago for client A, and you need your new NOC guy to now do it for client B -- the blockchain becomes the documentation of what was done. We can build all of the above in other ways today, of course. But there's certainly something to be said for a vendor-supported solution that is inherent in the platform and requires no additional infrastructure. Whether or not that's worth the complexities of managing a blockchain on networking devices is, perhaps, a whole other discussion. :) - Peter
On 2018-01-08 12:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI.
Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?
Regards, Bill Herrin
There's probably some potential in using a blockchain for things like configuration management. You can authenticate who made what change and when (granted, we can kinda-sorta do this already with the various authentication and logging mechanisms, but the blockchain is an immutable, permanent record inherently required for the system to work at all).
That immutable, sequenced chain of events would let you do things like "make my test environment look like production did last Thursday at 9AM" trivially by reading the blockchain up until that timestamp, then running a fork of the chain for the new test environment to track its own changes during testing.
Or when you know you did something 2 months ago for client A, and you need your new NOC guy to now do it for client B -- the blockchain becomes the documentation of what was done.
We can build all of the above in other ways today, of course. But there's certainly something to be said for a vendor-supported solution that is inherent in the platform and requires no additional infrastructure. Whether or not that's worth the complexities of managing a blockchain on networking devices is, perhaps, a whole other discussion. :)
- Peter Why to reinvent git? :) Lot of tools available also, to see diff on git commits, to see who did commit, and what exactly he changed. (it is possible to cryptographically sign commits, as well, and yes,
On 2018-01-08 08:59, Peter Kristolaitis wrote: they are chain signed, as "blockchain")
Hi, its not only about PKI. There are some currencies in the wild right now, that are more scalable than bitcoin and are made for the "ddos" world of IoT. For example a possible BGP extension could use smart contracts to form and confirm peering and also handle the direct payment process to the upstreams. Things like the DirectCloud of DE-CIX could be replaced by a "BGP-Exchange", where "routers" can sell and order services on their own and on-demand, for example if the "router" needs suddenly more bits to AS$X on a cold winter night. Also a "$IoT" device like a streaming dongle could order and pay by itself and may book the nearest data-"highway" for a PPV-event. Jörg
On 2018-01-08 08:59, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
On 2018-01-08 12:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI.
Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?
Regards, Bill Herrin
In article <0c45eee2-ffcb-2066-1456-eb2d38075007@alter3d.ca>, Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca> wrote:
We can build all of the above in other ways today, of course. But there's certainly something to be said for a vendor-supported solution that is inherent in the platform and requires no additional infrastructure. ...
No additional infrastructure? Blockchains need multiple devices that are online and have enough storage to keep a full copy of the chain. They make sense in an environment with multiple sophisticated parties that sort of but not entirely trust each other, but there aren't as many of those as you might think. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
On 2018-01-08 10:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <0c45eee2-ffcb-2066-1456-eb2d38075007@alter3d.ca>, Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca> wrote:
We can build all of the above in other ways today, of course. But there's certainly something to be said for a vendor-supported solution that is inherent in the platform and requires no additional infrastructure. ... No additional infrastructure? Blockchains need multiple devices that are online and have enough storage to keep a full copy of the chain. There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems.
They make sense in an environment with multiple sophisticated parties that sort of but not entirely trust each other, but there aren't as many of those as you might think. You (presumably) trust your own routers. There is absolutely no reason
The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small. that your own little network can't run your own private blockchain. In fact, for my use case of configuration management, you wouldn't WANT to use a single global public blockchain. - Peter
(watching this thread and wondering..) On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:39 AM, Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca> wrote:
On 2018-01-08 10:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <0c45eee2-ffcb-2066-1456-eb2d38075007@alter3d.ca>, Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca> wrote:
We can build all of the above in other ways today, of course. But there's certainly something to be said for a vendor-supported solution that is inherent in the platform and requires no additional infrastructure. ...
No additional infrastructure? Blockchains need multiple devices that are online and have enough storage to keep a full copy of the chain.
There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems.
I don't know that offloading computation on already busy network devices is a win for the rest of the network though. I don't know that you want to depend on local storage on devices which could be thousands of miles away from the people who can replace the hdd/ssd/storage-item.. especially when that storage is critical to the operations of the device. It turns out it's both expensive in time and pesos to fly someone into west-africa/east-asia/china/texas to repair a device in an emergency (unplanned work). The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin
blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.
I really don't think storage is the only problem here, and 'aren't particularly onerous' overlooks a whole host of actual problems in operations with blockchains... which just using git/sccs/cvs/etc fixes for your standard configuration management concerns. All of the git/sccs/cvs/etc avoid 'lots of storage necessary on remote devices' and 'lots of compute required on remote deices'.
They make sense in an environment with multiple sophisticated parties
that sort of but not entirely trust each other, but there aren't as many of those as you might think.
You (presumably) trust your own routers. There is absolutely no reason that your own little network can't run your own private blockchain. In fact, for my use case of configuration management, you wouldn't WANT to use a single global public blockchain.
someone 12 messages back asked: "why is this better/different/etc from just using git/sccs/cvs/etc for configuration management/revision-control?" I've not seen that answered, except by the speculative: "well, it's a cool buzzword" comment.
- Peter
A slightly more pessimistic view: https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-b... -- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably depends on what business you are in.
There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems.
The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
BTC miners use asics. Big switches/routers use 100Gb asics. Some switches have multiple 100 Gb asics and sometimes only half is use or even less. I guess it could be nice for some smaller telcos to generate some profit during off peak period. I don't know how feasible and I fully understand that the vendor warranty should be instantly void. Also, sometimes telcos have off the shelves spare that gather dust for years... It could be interesting to also generate few coins. Jean On 18-01-09 10:31 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably depends on what business you are in.
There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems.
The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
The definition of an ASIC is that it has only one use. Just because half of a 100gb switch is not in use doesn't mean that you can mine bitcoin, or run a blockchain with the asics not in use.. On 9 January 2018 at 08:49, Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
BTC miners use asics. Big switches/routers use 100Gb asics. Some switches have multiple 100 Gb asics and sometimes only half is use or even less.
I guess it could be nice for some smaller telcos to generate some profit during off peak period. I don't know how feasible and I fully understand that the vendor warranty should be instantly void.
Also, sometimes telcos have off the shelves spare that gather dust for years... It could be interesting to also generate few coins.
Jean
Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just
On 18-01-09 10:31 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably depends on what business you are in.
There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself
The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire
Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more
can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems. transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It's even in the name! You can't just run normal software on ASICs. It's not a computer. They're literally hard-wired to do one thing - and do it well. Switch ASICs, for example, are good for switching network packets around. Though (I would assume) they can't do any kind of hashing, much less Bitcoin-specific stuff. Trying to mine Bitcoin on switch ASICs would be like trying to transfer water through a 2.4GHz WiFi connection - both are absolutely preposterous ideas. Regards -- Filip Hruska Linux System Administrator Dne 1/9/18 v 17:02 Michael Crapse napsal(a):
The definition of an ASIC is that it has only one use. Just because half of a 100gb switch is not in use doesn't mean that you can mine bitcoin, or run a blockchain with the asics not in use..
On 9 January 2018 at 08:49, Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
BTC miners use asics. Big switches/routers use 100Gb asics. Some switches have multiple 100 Gb asics and sometimes only half is use or even less.
I guess it could be nice for some smaller telcos to generate some profit during off peak period. I don't know how feasible and I fully understand that the vendor warranty should be instantly void.
Also, sometimes telcos have off the shelves spare that gather dust for years... It could be interesting to also generate few coins.
Jean
Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just
There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger
The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more
On 18-01-09 10:31 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably depends on what business you are in. problems. transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On 11 January 2018 at 00:54, Filip Hruska <fhr@fhrnet.eu> wrote:
You can't just run normal software on ASICs. It's not a computer. They're literally hard-wired to do one thing - and do it well. Switch ASICs, for example, are good for switching network packets around. Though (I would assume) they can't do any kind of hashing, much less Bitcoin-specific stuff.
You're probably right that Switch ASICs would not be able to do any BTC stuff. But most of them do use hashes, MACs are in hash tables often, balancing requires hashes. There is also somewhat hazy definition what is ASIC and what is NPU, NPU boxes are large collection of same chips, and chips are executing same software to completion, they can do anything, just matter of how long it takes and how effective they are doing it, they certainly wouldn't be practical BTC miners.. -- ++ytti
It seems to me that at the current moment in the evolution of bitcoin, the only way to make money from it is to sell the equipment to mine coins, as the chances of ever making any money from mining coins yourself are vanishingly small. And then only if you get your electricity and cooling for free. It has been estimated that the amount of electricity being consumed worldwide in the attempt to mine bitcoins exceeds the consumption of several smaller European countries. Since little of this power is generated from renewable sources, it could represent a significant consumption of fossil fuels. - Brian On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:49:52AM -0500, Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG wrote:
BTC miners use asics. Big switches/routers use 100Gb asics. Some switches have multiple 100 Gb asics and sometimes only half is use or even less.
I guess it could be nice for some smaller telcos to generate some profit during off peak period. I don't know how feasible and I fully understand that the vendor warranty should be instantly void.
Also, sometimes telcos have off the shelves spare that gather dust for years... It could be interesting to also generate few coins.
Jean
New devices like the former Brocade SLX even has its own hypervisor on x86-intel and runs an Ubuntu VM for management and monitoring. You can even install your own things, therefore new applications and purposes will rise in the future. I also believe that dockerization will come to the networks and we will handle routing protocols more like containers that will be linked to the host-os, adding reseller and namespace capabilities and so on. There will be room for blockchain typeof-handlers that does not need to be a "full node" or a "miner". It could just be a "wallet"-type, that is linked to companies-internal-"light" nodes, to exchanges or registries or $y for purposes, that we might not even think of right now or still need to write PoC for (remind me in $x years). Jörg On 9 Jan 2018, at 16:31, Naslund, Steve wrote:
Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably depends on what business you are in.
There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger problems.
The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that the physical space requirements are quite small.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
"Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?" This is the most important question to ask. Everything else is just buzzwordy shenanigans. On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:52 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution.
Hi Glen,
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI.
Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Transferring log files, used as forensic evidence, comes to mind. Any kind of paperwork, tables, etc. associated with network configuration - particularly if you're trying to preserve changes. On 1/11/18 10:22 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
"Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?"
This is the most important question to ask. Everything else is just buzzwordy shenanigans.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:52 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution.
Hi Glen,
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI.
Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Transferring log files, used as forensic evidence, comes to mind.
Blockchain is no better at transferring log files than regular PKI. Blockchain could be used to authenticate that forensic evidence presented later is the same evidence that was originally logged by the individual who collected it where the agency responsible for custody of the evidence is not trusted or where there have been claims evidence tampering. Interesting law enforcement application. Dubious utility in networking where the networking staff are a trusted authority. Any kind of paperwork, tables, etc. associated with network configuration -
particularly if you're trying to preserve changes.
AFAICT, blockchain is no better at this than regular PKI and regular PKI is much less expensive to operate. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net> wrote:
Traceroute or any other path diagnostics comes to mind.
That's not obvious to me. Assuming the time-exceeded message was modified to include the necessary data, how would blockchain authenticate the responding router? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:28:19 -0500, William Herrin said:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net> wrote:
Traceroute or any other path diagnostics comes to mind.
That's not obvious to me. Assuming the time-exceeded message was modified to include the necessary data, how would blockchain authenticate the responding router?
And do you really want to do *all* that on every single 'TTL Exceeded' ICMP? Sounds like a *really* easy way to DDoS a router....
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:28:19 -0500, William Herrin said:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net> wrote:
Traceroute or any other path diagnostics comes to mind.
That's not obvious to me. Assuming the time-exceeded message was modified to include the necessary data, how would blockchain authenticate the responding router?
And do you really want to do *all* that on every single 'TTL Exceeded' ICMP? Sounds like a *really* easy way to DDoS a router....
pish-posh! the asics will do it.
On 2018-01-13 03:26, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:28:19 -0500, William Herrin said:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net> wrote:
Traceroute or any other path diagnostics comes to mind.
That's not obvious to me. Assuming the time-exceeded message was modified to include the necessary data, how would blockchain authenticate the responding router?
And do you really want to do *all* that on every single 'TTL Exceeded' ICMP? Sounds like a *really* easy way to DDoS a router....
pish-posh! the asics will do it.
Apparently we are not keeping up with the cool kids here. https://www.openct.io/ * Open in the name * .IO TLD * A scrolling website It all checks out as a legitimate web3.0 biz ########################################### * Blockchain as a Transport (BaaT): BaaT leverages blockchain to create an architecture that can connect geographically dispersed Layer 2 islands over any available infrastructure, including the public Internet. As the resulting solution securely supports all kinds of traffic: Unicast, Multicast and Broadcast - BaaT will become the transport service of choice for all businesses. * Blockchain-Defined Wide Area Networks (BD-WAN): BD-WAN integrates blockchain with Software-Defined WAN (SD-WAN) for a secure, scalable virtualization of WAN transport technologies. Among the unique features (not available with most SD-WAN architectures): The ability to dynamically establish and tear down logical and physical circuits so customers pay only for what they consume. * Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering via blockchain (near zero time delay). Trusted per-usage billings that are verified and hard-coded over the blockchain. Full visibility and control over all transport facilities either via Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) or via partnership with key telco operators and metro Ethernet providers worldwide. Bringing public cloud and content services seamlessly to the customers' doorstep as part of the standard offering. ########################################### I wanna buy all of these stuff right now! -- hugge
I'd be interested in applications around ownership of IP space or ASNs, but there's so many ways to skin that cat already that people don't do because it's 'hard' or 'reduces our flexibility' or sometimes because it involves hardware upgrades as Christopher Morrow pointed out with RPKI and BGPsec. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:20 AM, Fredrik Korsbäck <hugge@nordu.net> wrote:
On 2018-01-13 03:26, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:28:19 -0500, William Herrin said:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net> wrote:
Traceroute or any other path diagnostics comes to mind.
That's not obvious to me. Assuming the time-exceeded message was modified
to include the necessary data, how would blockchain authenticate the responding router?
And do you really want to do *all* that on every single 'TTL Exceeded' ICMP? Sounds like a *really* easy way to DDoS a router....
pish-posh! the asics will do it.
Apparently we are not keeping up with the cool kids here.
* Open in the name * .IO TLD * A scrolling website
It all checks out as a legitimate web3.0 biz
###########################################
* Blockchain as a Transport (BaaT): BaaT leverages blockchain to create an architecture that can connect geographically dispersed Layer 2 islands over any available infrastructure, including the public Internet. As the resulting solution securely supports all kinds of traffic: Unicast, Multicast and Broadcast - BaaT will become the transport service of choice for all businesses.
* Blockchain-Defined Wide Area Networks (BD-WAN): BD-WAN integrates blockchain with Software-Defined WAN (SD-WAN) for a secure, scalable virtualization of WAN transport technologies. Among the unique features (not available with most SD-WAN architectures):
The ability to dynamically establish and tear down logical and physical circuits so customers pay only for what they consume.
* Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering via blockchain (near zero time delay).
Trusted per-usage billings that are verified and hard-coded over the blockchain.
Full visibility and control over all transport facilities either via Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) or via partnership with key telco operators and metro Ethernet providers worldwide.
Bringing public cloud and content services seamlessly to the customers' doorstep as part of the standard offering.
###########################################
I wanna buy all of these stuff right now!
-- hugge
Traceroute or any other path diagnostics comes to mind. Dale Thus spake Tom Beecher (beecher@beecher.cc) on Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:22:43PM -0500:
"Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?"
This is the most important question to ask. Everything else is just buzzwordy shenanigans.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:52 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
Do folks on this list see blockchain technology making inroads into the networking? I can see blockchain being used to secure the SDN environment where blockchain will allow encrypted data transfers between nodes (ones hosting different applications, the SDN controller, the data plane devices) regardless of the network size or its geographical distribution.
Hi Glen,
I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where blockchain does that any better than plain old PKI.
Blockchain is great at proving chain of custody, but when do you need to do that in computer networking?
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
participants (21)
-
Alex White-Robinson -
Brian Kantor -
chris -
Christopher Morrow -
Dale W. Carder -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Filip Hruska -
Fredrik Korsbäck -
Glen Kent -
Hugo Slabbert -
Jean | ddostest.me -
John Levine -
Jörg Kost -
Michael Crapse -
Miles Fidelman -
Naslund, Steve -
Peter Kristolaitis -
Saku Ytti -
Tom Beecher -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin