1996-04-13 - Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

Header Data

From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Message Hash: 71a0ec10c21481694c20a004be43aa218a774b23f25dc0119564295a884dc93e
Message ID: <v03005b03ad944efa70c3@[]>
Reply To: <v02120d2bad91ecd377cc@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-13 15:22:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:22:12 +0800

Raw message

From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:22:12 +0800
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun
In-Reply-To: <v02120d2bad91ecd377cc@[]>
Message-ID: <v03005b03ad944efa70c3@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>Lucky Green writes:
>>At 9:48 4/10/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>>>We know that governments would like to impose things like the Simple
>>>Tax Transfer Protocol on the Net as well as Is A Person (and Is A Minor)
>>There is one thing about the proposed minor flag addition to IP that I
>>don't understand. [No, I am not surprised by this. Mandatory authorization
>>to establish a connection and an "Internet Driver License", probably in the
>>form or a smart card are coming].
>>If my computer creates the IP packet, what is there to prevent me from
>>modifying the value of the "Minor/Adult" flag at my leisure?
>Yikes!  Don't lend it the credibility of calling it "proposed".
>Someone might think you're serious.  "Suggested" is as far as I'd go.
>Anyway, you computer creates the IP packet, but then sends it to your
>ISP's router.  That router *always* makes changes to the packet header
>because it must decrement the time-to-live field and recompute the
>header checksum.  The ISP's router software would (in the scenario I
>suggested, but deplore), based on to whom it's connected, set the
>drivers licence flag as it sees fit.  When a PPP account of a "minor"
>sends a packet, the router always inserts "minor".  When the account of
>an adult sends it, it inserts "adult".  When the account of a partner
>who has contractually accepted liability for the flag's setting sends a
>packet, it leaves it alone.
How would this work in my case?
I have a Pipeline 25 ISDN router in my house.
I have several computers, used by myself, my wife, and my kids, connected
via Ethernet to the p25. The router talks to my provider. I have _one_
account at my provider.

Multiple IP #s, multiple machines, multiple users, ONE account.
Which router will insert the "suggested" flag, and how will it decide which
packets to tag?

I suspect the people who thought this up haven't thought it through. :-)
They are confusing "ISP accounts" with "e-mail" addresses, maybe?

My setup may be unusual, but it's certainly not unique.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Aladdin Systems   <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>

"Eternal vigilance is the price of PostScript"
-- MacUser Jan 96 DTP and Graphics column