Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies

[Tyler Durden]

"I think it would be far easier if WAN protocols were plain GBit Ethernet."

WAN won't be 1GbE, but it will probably be 10GbE with SONET framing, or else 
OC-192c POS (ie, PPP-encapsulated HDLC-framed MPLS). In either case, I 
suspect it will be far cheaper in the long run to monitor a big fat pipe 
than to try to break out a zillion lil' tiny DS1s.

-TD


>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>To: "J.A. Terranson" <measl at mfn.org>, cypherpunks at al-qaeda.net
>Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:34:18 +0200
>
>On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:50:16AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
>
> > I have seen a passive tap on a gig line used for IDS, true, but that's
> > pretty close to the state of the art right now.  There's an issue with
>
>There are dedicated network processors, though, and one can outsorce the
>filter bottlenecks into an FPGA board. This is still reasonably small and
>cheap.
>
> > getting the interfaces for the 1U Dell, and then you have the secondary
> > issues of just how much encapsulated crap do you need to strip off, and
> > how fast.  Remeber, you only get 1 shot, and you *can't* ask for more 
>time
> > - if your buffer runneth over, you be screwed.
> >
> > It's not as easy as it feels.
>
>I think it would be far easier if WAN protocols were plain GBit Ethernet.
>
>--
>Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
>______________________________________________________________
>ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
>8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
><< attach3 >>

_________________________________________________________________
Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/