On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Joe Touch wrote: > >> So you want us to redesign the Internet to run over port 443. > > > Nope. > >> The again, IP has fragmentation. That too is reality, even if we don’t >> like it. > > > IP have lots of things. Hop-by-hop-headers for instance. Really bad idea. > Mikael,
Definition of hop-by-hop options might have been flawed in that they were required to be processed by every node in the path. But with that restriction relaxed, this now is the only feasible mechanism that provides inband host to network or network to host signaling. IMO, this is far better idea than all the approaches that have being do ad hoc DPI into transport layers or even transport payload. Fortunately this is one area that might progress. QUIC seems to have enough traction and encrypts header to render DPI ineffective. If the QUIC application wants to tell something to the network it can do that by HBH (this is a premise of FAST). >> Again, something broken needs fixing. You can chase the symptoms forever >> or you can deal with the cause. It’s simply not tenable to ‘fix’ the >> internet to accommodate broken devices. > > > The thing here is that you haven't proposed a realistic way to deal with the > problem. We do not have any enforcement mechanism. > > Applications need to work when faced with adverse conditions. They can work > less well, that's fine, but they still need to work. > This leads to driving everything down to only support the least common denominator. Problem is that we can never move things forward if everyone is bound to LCD. Tom > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
