[e2e] 0% NAT - checkmating the disconnectors

[Greg Skinner]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 07:56:12AM -0500, David P. Reed wrote:
> Saikat Guha wrote:
> > Is there a way to architect the Internet to give the network operator
> > full control over his network? So, when his boss (who paid for the wires
> > and routers) asks him to block application X, he can do just that and
> > not cause the collateral damage that firewall-hacks cause today.
> > Shameless plug: we believe signaling is one way to work _with_ the
> > network, and not against it
> > (http://saikat.guha.cc/pub/sosp05wip-guha.pdf). But, this is just one
> > solution.
> >   
> I'm amazed.   The network operator in this case wants to join the 
> Internet, but not join the Internet.
> 
> The Internet is a fully interoperable network.   That means inherently 
> that all operators that carry Internet traffic agree to carry their fair 
> share.

Hmmm ... I don't remember offhand any Internet design document that
states this.  There were restrictive policies implemented, even in the
original Internet, for cause (such as the Mailbridges that could be
configured to deny traffic from the ARPAnet to the MILnet except for
destination SMTP port).

> What you are describing is not the Internet, but something else.   The 
> "cooperation-optional" network, perhaps?   Or maybe the "screw you" network?

Rather than arguing about whether this is or is not the Internet,
perhaps the question should be reframed as whether this constitutes a
set of principles upon which the next generation network can be
built.

> If the network advertises that it routes packets to a destination, how 
> is the source to know that its packets will be destroyed based on their 
> content?

The way I read the paper, the source would be notified that the
attempt was refused due to insufficient privilege.

> At that point, it's time for those who agree to the original terms of 
> the Internet social compact (which is far more than social) to 
> blackball, boycott, and refuse to connect to that operator.  Screw him.

Why?  Because he wants to protect his network?