North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Lazy network operators
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Date: Wed Apr 14 06:21:34 2004
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´s run something similar to MPLS so they could reduce the
hop count and "funnel" the email though instead of storing and
forwarding it hop by hop? Maybe some users would then be willing to
pay more for the extra complexity and it would also skyrocket job
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
choke point where rate limiting can be done, but doing multihop makes
little sense. The authorization information implied in the routing can
just as easily be learned from the sender, if protected through
cryptographic means. (Yes, #include <pki.h> but that's the part where
we show that we aren't so lazy after all.)
|
