If you aren't following tho, see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/06/dpi_standard_leaked/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
A couple of years back we had some discussion about the need to design IETF protocols to be DPI resistant. One principle that I think should guide our efforts is that not only should each protocol be itself DPI resistant, but it should deliberately assist other protocols in being DPI resistant. I call this "intentional mutual obscurity". Compare it to camouflage. In the city, one person wearing camo will stand out and be noticed. But in the woods during hunting season (or on the battlefield), everybody is camouflaged and nobody stands out. It also works for herds of zebras, it works for schools of fish, and it should work for flocks of packets. You may remember thinking that this position was a little "extreme" when I proposed it. With the ITU insisting on designing deep packet inspection into the network at the behest of dictators, tyrants, and thugs at various levels of political regimes, perhaps we're ready to reconsider? -- Dean
_______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
