[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results

[RJ Atkinson]

On May 26, 2004, at 11:52, Joe Touch wrote:
> Impossible is the case I was referring to. Certainly IF transforms are
> possible then they should be used and the data made available. However,
> some data sources aren't comfortable with these transforms, since there
> may be data correlation that ends up compromising the transform.
>
> Notably those that correlate data to existing Internet routing tables -
> if you found something that preserved not only prefixes but also the
> aggregation, and published it, you'd have to publish the routing tables
> similarly transformed. However, since the untransformed routing tables
> are available publicly anyway, you've compromised your transform.

	Whether the transform is compromised would depend greatly on which
particular routing tables one was working with.  The routing table
contents do vary depending on where one is viewing them from, hence
the wide variety of "looking glass" installations to give one views
from different locations in the topology.  This is also shown in the
variance in the size of the routing table as seen from various 
locations.
If one was working with a routing table from a device where the local 
view
of the routing tables is not published, it is not obvious that such
a transform would necessarily be compromised.

	In short, it all depends greatly on the details of each case.
Broad sweeping assertions that any data correlating to any existing
Internet routing table would necessarily be compromised despite use
of some suitable transformation are not reasonable.

	Bob Briscoe's comments seem helpful and reasonable from here.

Ran
rja at extremenetworks.com