Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC683A0A4D for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5q0O2Cnjqwvo for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEEB23A0A41 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CdMgvPbrUMtUDEwTsLyPZbAvdxvu69B9kQh1cweAKa4=; b=A2cwsstNaMWAG3KdMweduVmfz PmqdYeF3hyHchiw/2Bmn+lO6JazKzq5GU4PV1Jy+a2B3+BU9c1BJAbkTkUVZtKl6lFr0HavmHAysb ewOpwv1iKxpbkSN0eQNozpoxHPo+jbTso5tdYtgr+Kw8VBTaF6igX6nmb0Bcwjcv2+ifFbbng6unD FDkDlJfBPCbot3WUwO3DXzc40WdSEXKNGJczZnZMmwdIsB8AbxDC1z1w4S5IALb+WLeMXHjE1GF7/ LC5Qh/DFpIGG0BFd8uIqpN8kLtNbks64WbKsWiGyIBg+Ih93ru56OG0jS+foApIYIQYj+U8USxsvB UIvw98YVw==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:65394 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1k8719-001L82-Da; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:11:35 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200817205340.593BA1EE58DA@ary.local>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:30 -0700
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <43A691EE-CA6D-4F76-A02A-3335D2CAB27E@strayalpha.com>
References: <20200817205340.593BA1EE58DA@ary.local>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/V_cJhq8n7GsdoXBLSVDsCWeag5k>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] A Public Option for the Core
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:11:40 -0000


> On Aug 17, 2020, at 1:53 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <DE7895D0-0EBB-4C78-9944-0DC203E14C37@strayalpha.com> you write:
>> As to trust, it only matters that an intermediate hasn’t forged a new header. You don’t need to trust the user - if
>> they want to map their email to high-priority and pay for that usage, that’s their business (literally). If that’s more
>> service than they paid for, then drop packets.
> 
> The problem is when you have networks connected A-B-C, network A sets
> the header for deluxe service, then complains to B that C isn't
> providing the service they're paying for.  What service? says C.

That’s not a problem. That’s just a contract and (potentially) a lawsuit, depending on which network claims that traversal would support deluxe service. If you can’t trust your ISP - from whom you buy deluxe service - to contract the correct service out to parties that honor the tags, then you’ve chosen poorly.

I.e., that isn’t a protocol problem. 

> I realize that in the real world there's tons of VPNs and overlays
> that provide various sorts of guarantees but they're a direct
> arrangement between a customer and the network providing the service.

Direct or subcontract - at some point, if you don’t have that relationship with a peer, you can’t offer that as a transit.

Joe