Hiya, On 06/12/2018 00:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Just to point out that this is equivalent to saying "game over, any > new layer 4 protocol" too. For example, you just killed SCTP. And the > same goes for new protocols over IPv4. Well, there is port 443 and quic etc. While I don't have a position in the discussion so far, it does seem to validate the proposition that encrypting as a counter to ossification is a valid (but not the only valid) argument. Interestingly, this discussion could be read to imply that encrypting transports like quic may better support higher throughput networks with fast-path routers (where anything other than fast-path is basically /dev/null) by taking some models of DPI off the table. That somewhat sharply contrasts with arguments against such encrypting transports that I've seen offered by operators. I'm not claiming this is a winning argument, nor anything like one, but perhaps noteworthy. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
