At 12:41 PM 7/3/2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:33AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote:
> However, philosophically: security=less trust vs. scalability=more trust.
> intelligent=smart-enough-to-confuse vs. simple=predictable. Thus, a very
> Intelligent Secure network is usually a nightmare of unexplained failures
> and limited scope.
Counter-example: SS7.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
That is a good counter example, although it comes with some caveats. I work
with SS7 regularly. SS7 should be simple since it performs a simple
function, it is actually complicated and complex. But, since SS7 takes us
away from the human-managed "static routing" of the older (MF?) trunk
networks systems, it's intelligence creates redundancy and limited failover.
Perhaps Clark will create something that is win-win like that...
(I assume you are giving this as a "intelligent vs. simple"
counter-example, since SS7 is an example of good scale because it trusts
blindingly.)
John