Re: Opportunistic Tunneling

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Responding a to few points you raised..
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > > I believe proto-41 is also one of the proposals on the table for
> > > both unmanaged and 3GPP.
> > > 
> > > For example, TSP can make use of it. We also have a Tunnel Broker
> > > implementation that does.
> > 
> > Note that while proto-41 forwarding is probably useful in e.g. 
> > unmanaged scope in general, it is not really applicable to this 
> > specific topic, "opportunistic tunneling", where the tunneling is 
> > autoomatic, and requires no supporting ISPs.  E.g., tunnel brokers are 
> > out of scope for this topic.
> > 
> > Ignoring proto-41 however...
> 
> It will depend on what we consider "opportunistic". For me is clear
> that we can have tunnel brokers that work like 6to4, i.e., no user
> registration. Then you use proto-41 (or other means) ... also TSP
> here can play the game, if no user authentication is required.

I guess this could be possible in theory.  User authentication will 
probably always be there, though.  The user and the ISP have to set up 
some kind of authentication to ensure that nobody else can hijack the 
tunnel, at least -- not considering the non-technical requirements, 
such as the economic (non-incentive) for deploying such an anonymous 
tunnel service, which would probably lead to a lot of trouble in the 
long run (abuse reports from your netblock, increased traffic ~= 
bigger payments to your transit operators, etc.).

So, this approach would seem to have both technical and non-technical
constraints why its feasibility is a bit questionable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings