[137800] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (kmedcalf@dessus.com)
Sat Feb 19 13:11:58 2011
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:11:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <483E6B0272B0284BA86D7596C40D29F9011F76964EA0@PUR-EXCH07.ox.com>
From: "kmedcalf@dessus.com" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "Matthew Huff" <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
And that has nothing to do with whether a protocol is a peer protocol or no=
t. IP is a peer-to-peer protocol. As SMTP is implemented over IP, it is a=
lso a peer-to-peer protocol.
In IP, all hosts/nodes are peers.
That you may wish that this were not the case and thereby impose completely=
arbitrary "paper based controls" does not in any way change the fact that =
IP is a peer to peer protocol and that all IP hosts/nodes are peers on the =
network.
Your "paper based controls" are just as effective in turning an IP host/nod=
e into a non-peer host/node as is holding up a copy of a restraining order =
preventing Johhny X from hitting you in the face in front of Johhny's fist =
just before he breaks your nose.
That you believe that your "paper controls" have any effect on reality is s=
addening. Just because someone writes a bit of paper saying that the moon =
is made of green cheese does not make it so. Writing on a bit of paper tha=
t IP is not a peer-peer protocol does not make it so.
If your security is based on such wishful thinking and self-delusion, you r=
eally ought to invest in some technical controls that are reality-based and=
stop with the paper-compliance-tiger as it provides no useful benefit what=
soever.
---
()=A0 ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\=A0 www.asciiribbon.org
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff@ox.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 03 February, 2011 16:41
>To: Matthew Palmer; nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: quietly....
>
>SMTP is definitely not a p2p protocol in most corporate environments. In o=
urs,
>all email (even ones that you would think should be host2host) go to a cen=
tral
>"smarthost" that processes the mail, and archive it for compliance. All
>internal to external and external to internal email is tightly controlled =
and
>only goes through a very specific route.
>
>Again, big difference between a univerisity or ISP environment and a corpo=
rate
>one.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:mpalmer@hezmatt.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:00 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: quietly....
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:20:25PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 03, 2011 02:28:32 pm Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wro=
te:
>> > > The only reason FTP works through a NAT is because the NAT has alrea=
dy
>> > > been hacked up to further mangle the data stream to make up for the
>> > > mangling it does.
>> >
>> > FTP is a in essence a peer-to-peer protocol, as both ends initiate TCP
>> > streams. I know that's nitpicking, but it is true.
>>
>> So is SMTP, by the same token. Aptly demonstrating why the term "P2P" i=
s so
>> mind-alteringly stupid.
>>
>> - Matt
>
