[69540] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lazy network operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Apr 14 06:19:52 2004
In-Reply-To: <407D0972.5060107@he.iki.fi>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:19:04 +0200
To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 14-apr-04, at 11:50, Petri Helenius wrote:
>> I wonder how this is going to affect SMTP mail handling as
>> it stands - for example, how many 'hops' will there be
>> between this university's mail gateway and, say, MIT's
>> mail gateway(s)? Will people start playing header rewrite
>> tricks so MTAs around the world don't bomb out with
>> "exceeded hop count" ? "Just one hop!" games, a la IP routing in
>> the final stages of last century, may rear its ugly head again.
> Could the MTA=B4s run something similar to MPLS so they could reduce =
the=20
> hop count and "funnel" the email though instead of storing and=20
> forwarding it hop by hop? Maybe some users would then be willing to=20
> pay more for the extra complexity and it would also skyrocket job=20
> security.
How would multi-hop routing work for ~100M domains, anyway?
Requiring a hop in the middle could be useful in order to create a=20
choke point where rate limiting can be done, but doing multihop makes=20
little sense. The authorization information implied in the routing can=20=
just as easily be learned from the sender, if protected through=20
cryptographic means. (Yes, #include <pki.h> but that's the part where=20
we show that we aren't so lazy after all.)=
