Subject: The utility of IP, port blocking

From: [email-masked] (Dan Kolis)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:12:54 -0400

Said today:
>In a major example of false positives, we already have examples of one
>real cost of spam. AOL (as one example of many) has declared ranges of
>IP addresses marked 'residential' as invalid for running a particular
>application. In this case SMTP, but which app is next? There is a 'guilt
>by association' presumption here by the operations community, which when
>carried into other applications results in substantially limited value
>in the core IP protocol. 

About port blocking:
I think its inevitable a class action lawsuit will be tabled that any port
must be opened at the same rate/cost restriction structure (or lack of it),
as any other. The concern IP is at least a little as risk for functionality
is pretty serious stuff.

MPLS might improve this by making only the edges know the applications. But
the general principle you pay for "X" and don't get it because of the
actions of others who's behaivoirs superficially  resemble yours is unfair
in a way regarded as often actionable.

regs
Dan