<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Definition V4.2: concern about "consumer-grade"
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Definition V4.2: concern about "consumer-grade"
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:34:34 -0400
Mike,
Best use of time, not fight or flight. The distance between observers
and contractual parties is simply too great, so a synthesis of views
would simply present a significantly incomplete picture to the Council,
probably at the expense of some non-contractual parties as well.
See Mike R's note.
Eric
Mike O'Connor wrote:
an observation -- in any conflict, we're always making the choice
between "fight" or "flight." some of us fight first, and then
flight. some of us flight first and fight if folks run after us and
box us in. much misunderstanding happens when those things mix.
i'm proposing a third option. take a breath... maybe a walk... and
stay in the game. we need you in here with us. we need the clash of
all ideas because that's how we learn.
if we were in meat space, i'd propose a beer together...
please stay.
m
At 12:46 PM 8/1/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Mike,
I'm happy to continue separately, and I don't think a less
responsible engagement to the purposes of the PDP will result from
two efforts.
Eric
Mike O'Connor wrote:
ahem.
a fella finishes up a phone call, breaks for lunch, is just drifting
off for the Afternoon Nap when a fistfight breaks out on the list.
Eric, a gentle reminder -- let's keep the discussion civil here.
this last post was a little outside the limit.
how's a geezer to get his rest, otherwise? :-)
m
At 11:49 AM 8/1/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
is this for my benefit joe, or are you just spouting off?
if it is for my benefit, then you have to be addressing the
assertion, mine, that autonomous system is less determinitive of
risk than whether the network attached device is a microsoft
operating system product, and therefore a poor substitute, if the
root cause is not to be ignored.
reputation has been discussed more than once on nanog, which i know
even if you don't.
hold the "regards", i prefer real ones over what's available.
Joe St Sauver wrote:
Eric mentioned:
#Further, using AS as determinative is vastly less accurate to the
root #problem than using if-MS-then-NO as a gating mechanism,
regardless of #how much corporate chrome there is on the AS and
its commercial #operations. Since I don't think people want to go
down the #if-MS-then-obvious-conclusion path, the AS-is-guilty
false equivalent #should be dismissed.
In general, ASNs do accumulate reputation, just as domains accumulate
reputation, and just as netblocks accumulate reputation. One
particularly
notorious example of this from recent years would probably be the
"RBN"
case, although there are others.
The real value of ASN-based reputation accumulation, however, is
that:
-- there are relatively few ASNs (at least until 4 byte ASNs get
widely deployed)
-- it is possible to mechanically and scalably map IP's to ASNs
-- if you route a network block, you also have the option of not
routing
all or part of that block (e.g., there is a connection between
an ASN associated with an activity, and the ability to control
that
activity)
Most ASNs live somewhere on the vast continuum rightward of clean-as-
the-driven-snow and leftward of dirty-as-a-deep-rock-coal-miner-at-
end-of-shift, although there are some AS's that truly do anchor the
extremities of that scale. (Arguably, a trivial example of a "100%
guilty ASN" is one that has been hijacked, for example.)
Regards,
Joe
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus
Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 7/31/2008 12:00 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus
Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 7/31/2008 12:00 PM
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|