The Smith Report

[Roland Perry]

In article <200006011912.UAA05793@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
<chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>> > If I were an ISP, I would much prefer the semi-active method.
>> > I think it is much more likely that it can be made to work with
>> > less hassle than the passive ones
>> 
>> Well the ISP industry tell me different - let's hear from a few ISPs ?
>
>Sure. Richard? Roland?

I'm inclined to say that semi-active is easier because "all" it needs is
for the ISP to employ some policy-based routing (assuming there is such
a thing) to funnel a small proportion of its traffic past the
interception spot. 

The passive system requires you either to find such a point *without*
the added help of the policy-based routing (difficult in a backbone-less
architecture), or to find enough different places to put a succession of
of boxes to have a similar enough effect.
-- 
            Roland Perry | tel: +44 1733 207705 | roland@linx.org
      Regulation Officer | fax: +44 1733 353929 | http://www.linx.net
London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7050 604080 |       /contact/roland