Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > A copy of the note, admittedly very rough (just an outline, and a very
> > rough one at that) is at:
> >
> > http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/hazards-outline.txt
>
> This doesn't list what I thought was an obvious issue.
> If multiple nodes are originating packets
> A copy of the note, admittedly very rough (just an outline, and a very
> rough one at that) is at:
>
> http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/hazards-outline.txt
This doesn't list what I thought was an obvious issue.
If multiple nodes are originating packets with the same source
IP address it wi
On 13 Apr 2000, Marc Horowitz wrote:
> Vijay Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> think this would be more of an end system issue rather than a "core" or a
> >> "backbone" issue, where the end system is the box prior to the ISP handoff
> >> and not quite under the ISP's control and not the en
Hello Vernon,
At 21:48 12/04/00 -0600, you wrote:
>I also think you need to give up the idea of
>having computers make value judgements, but maybe that's just my lack of
>imagination.
>
Sure that computers will improve doing judgements, but don´t lost the main
force on Interenet, there are hund
Keith,
At 07:59 PM 11/04/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> > addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
> > needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC.
>
>sounds like a convenient excuse t
Vernon,
At 04:47 PM 11/04/00 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>Call me a non-team playing scab, but I refuse to the honor the old guild
>work rule that limits the questions I can consider. If sourcing
>other-owned etc. or anything else is an architectural or other problem,
>then professional pride
Vijay Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Any specific ISP's that one could care to name? Coming from an ISP, what
>> I've seen in general is that most routers have just enough cycles in the
>> forwarding path to keep up with the offered traffic, much less sit around
>> watching for SYN's in fli
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:48:28 MDT, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> circumstances you care about. An interception proxy can affect
> only traffic directed to it by a router in the path between IP
> peers (e.g. HTTP client and server). Your "computers anywhere"
> won't be using the ver
or persons to do
> censor, ranking to do their purchases decisions or whatever they want!, and
> probabily some people want to have more than one truster and balance them.
> ...
> So please, which will be the right tool for a truster service?
Please read the two WREC drafts to discove
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > As to the known-probs doc, that focuses on problems of the sort that
> > TCPIMPL did - errors in the implementation, not deliberately changing
> > specs.
>
> yes, but given that there are no specs for interception proxies,
> how do y
> As to the known-probs doc, that focuses on problems of the sort that
> TCPIMPL did - errors in the implementation, not deliberately changing
> specs.
yes, but given that there are no specs for interception proxies,
how do you judge what is and is not an error in the implementation?
> > where did the wrec folks get the idea that the IP specification was
> > obsolete?
>
> (speaking not for the entire WREC, but my impression of the meetings) I
> did get the impression (mistakenly or not) that addressing the whole of
> the IP spec was not particularly in scope (e.g., from our
"Dick St.Peters" wrote:
>
> Would you settle for "The IP spec authors didn't have enough foresight
> to foresee a need to rewrite source addresses" ? :)
>
> Whatever anyone thinks of it, people are doing it. On the right are
> people saying it is immoral, evil, and dangerous, not to mention
>
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> My impression from the two WG documents is that in the WG consensus is
> that HTTP interception proxies are at least tolerable and often necessary
> and good, and by extension probably also for SMTP and everything else.
The arch document defines, it doe
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> > addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
> > needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC.
>
> sounds like a convenient excuse to me...
> where did the wrec
> Actually, the view that everything about IP was cast in stone forever
> in the IP spec is exactly the view that is being argued about.
nobody has said anything about IP being cast in stone forever.
Keith
ly values there will be
>> also fun aplications of trusters.
>> ...
>
>That is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of interception proxies.
>Unless your ONGs, churges, other organizations, and so forth operate
>geographically non-trivial IP networks, they need not and shou
Charles Lynn writes:
> You have misread the specification. That "source" is not (IP Header)
> "Source Address" that you imply, but the "source" mentioned earlier in
> the sentence, i.e., "address in the source route" (option).
Apparently so - though given that the part I emphasized immediately
n, I think that ONGs, churchs, and
> other organizations and people will want to become Internet trusters soon,
> to defend their values throught Internet, and not only values there will be
> also fun aplications of trusters.
> ...
That is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of interc
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:51:51 +0200, Salvador Vidal said:
> May be the first step of a ecologist truster will be to devolop a black
> list of companies that are very agresive agains nature, the people that
> join this truster will be able to have censorship of this companies in
> order to presure t
Hello Vernon,
>listed are technical nits. If you assume that "traffic redirection"
>and an "interception proxy" are good things, then you might well worry
>about the "lack of HTTP/1.1 compliance for proxy caches" or whether
>"interception proxie
> From: "Dick St.Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The authors of the standard had the vision to foresee ...
> they designed a protocol flexible enough to encompass things they
> could not foresee.
Pardon me if I emit a "balderdash".
There's this tendency to act like IPv4 was handed
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Dick St.Peters wrote:
> Quoted from RFC791, the IP specification, in the section on loose
> source routing, page 19 [emphasis added]:
>
>If the address in destination address field has been reached and
>the pointer is not greater than the length, the next address in
>
Dick St.Peters says:
> Quoted from RFC791, the IP specification, in the section on loose
> source routing, page 19 [emphasis added]:
>
>If the address in destination address field has been reached and
>the pointer is not greater than the length, the next address in
>the source route r
Dick,
> Quoted from RFC791, the IP specification, in the section on loose
> source routing, page 19 [emphasis added]:
>
>If the address in destination address field has been reached and
>the pointer is not greater than the length, the next address in
>the source route replaces the ad
> The authors of the standard had the vision to foresee that rewriting
> the source address might be desireable under some circumstances.
the authors of the IP standard provided for loose source routing.
this should not be interpreted as license to impersonate a host
when source routing was not r
Keith Moore writes:
> > This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> > addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
> > needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC.
>
> sounds like a convenient excuse to me...
> where did the wrec fol
participation in the
discussion.
> My impression from the two WG documents is that in the WG consensus is
> that HTTP interception proxies are at least tolerable and often necessary
> and good, and by extension probably also for SMTP and everything else.
the documents aren't publishe
cing something, then it can be
important to not participate. Participation even in opposition inevitably
supports the official position. 30 years ago the word "co-opted" was used
to describe the problem.
My impression from the two WG documents is that in the WG consensus is
that HTTP
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> And the latest kludge which has been called to my attention is ISP's
> that tamper with the MSS values in TCP SYN packets in flight. This is
> done to work around smaller MTU's caused by PPP over Ethernet (and other
> tunnelling mechanisms) interac
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:47:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Which is why it was depressing. Oh, well, perhaps a future version of
the Problems draft will consider that issue and say as others wrote, it's
not a problem and can be fixed with big buffers wat
FWIW, there _was_ discussion in WREC of the hazards of transparent web
caching. I dug up an old e-mail, describing the hazards of transparent
web caching which I summarized at the time, when WREC was forming.
A copy of the note, admittedly very rough (just an outline, and a very
rough one at that
> Call me a non-team playing scab, but I refuse to the honor the old guild
> work rule that limits the questions I can consider. If sourcing
> other-owned etc. or anything else is an architectural or other problem,
> then professional pride ought to force one to raise the issue insetad of
> waiti
> This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
> needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC.
sounds like a convenient excuse to me...
where did the wrec folks get the idea that the IP spec
...
> > Joining that mailing list would not be useful, prudent, or honest for
> > people with sentiments like mine. Moving the question of the wisdom of
> > such proxies to WREC would be equivalent to moving the question of the
> > wisdom of wiretapping to the wiretapping working group. At best
time I've been told
"we can't think about that; we'll have to ask to marketing" ... on the
other hand, most of those shares would be merely expensive wallpaper.
> >... That there is no mention of the problems that IP
> > fragmentation can caus
"BookIII, Robert" wrote:
>
> Joe,
> Am I to presume by your statement that you are of the mind that the
> time for considering whether vs. which has already come and gone? Is there
> anyone on this list who thinks that?
With respect to 'inside the WG', yes, the assumption has been (to
]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:03 PM
To: Vernon Schryver
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: interception proxies
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
>
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> > From: John Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There has been a lot of discussion about the problems associated with
> > so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is very much within the
> > charter of the WREC W
wrec is supposed to be about *web* replication and caching.
which probably doesn't include email. so I can hardly
blame them for not talking about port 25. since other kinds
of interception proxies exist, perhaps they should clarify their
document slightly to say it's about web in
> From: John Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the problems associated with
> so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is very much within the
> charter of the WREC WG. In fact, we even have a current draft whose sole
&
There has been a lot of discussion about the problems associated with
so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is very much within the
charter of the WREC WG. In fact, we even have a current draft whose sole
purpose is to document such problems.
The known problems draft is
42 matches
Mail list logo
