Subject: [rrg] wikileak, cyber-war,...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:21:52 -0500

Background: Wikileak, agression against Wikileak, responses by angry Wikileak supporters with DoS and DDoS attacks.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to develop CASCADE TREE routing as to screw DoS and DDoS attacks ( and to provide - by the way - state-less Multicast and state-less mp2mp) ?

Heiner

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:29:23 +0200

> Wouldn't it be reasonable to develop CASCADE TREE routing as to screw DoS and DDoS attacks ( and to provide - by the way - state-less Multicast and state-less mp2mp) ?

Heiner, please elaborate on "cascade tree" routing.

---

From: "$witch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:51:14 +0100

On 12/28/10 14:21, [email-masked] wrote:
> [...]
>
> Wouldn't it be reasonable to develop CASCADE TREE routing as to screw 
> DoS and DDoS attacks [......]?
>
> Heiner

Hi, Heiner

maybe am a little bit off-topic but : why RRG need to take position 
against [D]DoS ?

maybe DDoSes are the only weapons in the hand of freedom, why do you 
like to downgrade them?

Alessandro

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:37:48 -0500

Don't get me wrong. I do have sympathy for Wikileak and for these reactions. But there are other concerns, too.
About well concerted series of attacks  which is rather known by the term cyber-war.

Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: $witch <[email-masked]>
An: [email-masked]
Verschickt: Di., 28. Dez. 2010, 15:51
Thema: Re: [rrg] wikileak, cyber-war,...

[...]

        
Wouldn't it be reasonable to develop CASCADE TREE routing          as to screw DoS and DDoS attacks [......]?

        
Heiner

          Hi, Heiner
          
          maybe am a little bit off-topic but : why RRG need to take          position against [D]DoS ? 
          
          maybe DDoSes are the only weapons in the hand of freedom, why          do you like to downgrade them?

          Alessandro

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Sampo Syreeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:58:21 +0200 (EET)

> maybe am a little bit off-topic but : why RRG need to take position 

It might be that flow and/or congestion control isn't now a routing 
problem, but everybody knows it's a core part of Internet architecture, 
and that (D)DoS is predicated upon circumventing it. So, it is a very 
real problem. If it can't be solved in some other way -- the ongoing 
backwards congestion signaling and pricing work springs to mind, and 
even that impacts IP level functionality as it stands -- then it isn't 
readily out of the question that the RRG would have to be involved at 
some point.

That's not on the formal agenda, though, so for now this sort of 
discussion does remain off-topic. (Personally I try to use the [ot] 
marker for this stuff, to enable automatic filtering, btw.)

> maybe DDoSes are the only weapons in the hand of freedom, why do you 

Here we're talking about not only e2e communication, but e2e, collective 
incentivization. I.e. something that is very much more political, 
incendiary and complicated than even state mandated policy routing. The 
stuff the Big Boys and Three Letter Agencies are keenly interested in. 
Would IETF/IRTF even *want* to go there?

Then if we leave out the politics and stick to the technical detail, 
it's true that the only real disincentive that works from end to end is 
(D)DoS. If we grant that such incentivization should be possible, that 
is a technical problem because DoS is a highly wasteful and disruptive 
means of communicating such information, with lots of collateral damage.

As such the proper way to address this would be to a) make DoS 
impossible or uneconomic at the architecture level, and then to b) 
design a low-overhead, e2e, secure, Internet Punishment Protocol to make 
this kind of feedback more explicit, scalable and manageable.

It's just that... At least for me something like IPP is stuff I'd expect 
to find in an April's Fool RFC. Not in any serious one.

DDoS resistant routing though sounds interesting. The HIP folks have 
been thinking about that sort of thing from the start, obviously. I 
wonder if some of their ideas, e.g. in the four-way handshake with 
expensive challenges, could be leveraged within the core-edge-separation 
work? I mean, without too much centralized computational burden; perhaps 
only in connection with mobility, where the end networks are many and 
lean? There and then I'd like to hear more about "cascade tree routing", 
and judging by the name, also about how it might potentially connect 
with MPLS and Nimrod.
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email-masked], http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2