Subject: RE: Accountability

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:57:35 -0700

> This is basic. I am not discussing that, but motivation and 
> quality of the expected deliveries. 

I think you mis-understand the point I am maching. I do not propose that
the IEFT attempt to form  the type of political relationships that you
rightly state will be needed. Such relationships are established in an
organic fashion.

Instead I am saying that the technology must be designed to provide the
types information required for the accountability mechanism to function.

The difference in approach is seen in the design of BGP security
schemes. If you take the traditional access control approach you attempt
to design a system that prevents injection of bad information. If you
take the accountability approach you accept the possibility that a bad
route will be injected in return for reducing the cost of maintenance
and deployment. The objective is not to preclude injection of bad
information but to allow identification of the party responsible.

This approach is a lot more practical when one of the real world
constraints that you deal with in the Internetwork is the reluctance of
the carriers to take steps that would reveal details of their internal
network structure to third parties - regardless of whether their network
is already visible in this fashion.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf