Re: WG status 2003/08/13

"Leech, Marcus (EXCHANGE:FITZ:8M86)" wrote:
>=20
> It would be useful to get the perspective of providers on this--if they=
 aren't
>   adopting ingress/egress filtering, why would they adopt itrace?

Laziness. Make vendors default itrace to ON in new images.
Sure, have an off switch. But default it to on. People won't
bother to turn it off.

Politically, such a stance would need strong backing from the IETF
so that vendors can point to the IETF and say "we're not forcing
more bloat down your throats; it's part of how the Internet=20
works now".


> IF [...] we will continue to work on the existing document, and=20
> expand the charter to include the intention-driven/active itrace=20
> functionality.

Question: is this the "give me more itraces!" notification
scheme via BGP (from may 2001), or the "did you really send this=20
packet?" question scheme aimed at itrace sourcing routers?

I'm assuming you mean the latter, but I'd like to make sure.


Pekka Savola wrote:
> current draft is too complex; we'd want to run it without any=20
> crypto/certificate/XML parts=20

I think I agree. The crypto parts are what is holding this=20
protocol back; the other parts have been done for years.=20

Either way, the protocol is future-safe -- if at some point
itrace generators start including new options, old parsers
will still understand what they previously understood.=20
If someone wants crypto at a later point, it can be added.

Also: when itrace adoption reaches high enough percentages,
we really don't need the crypto anymore. No -- it won't=20
happen any time soon, but if it makes it into the images of
the major players and defaults to on, it will happen=20
sooner or later.

Still: this is all just moot if the major players don't buy in.

--=20
Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB
Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 =D6RNSK=D6LDSVIK, Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00   Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05
Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50       WWW: http://www.clavister.com