31–40 of 199 posts
[1] https://www.cs.rice.edu/~dbj/pubs/draft-johnson-imhp-00.txt
Edit: Its official entry at the IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnson-imhp/
What he's really arguing for is a circuit-switched network, so that connections can be persistent over moves. He just needs a unique connection ID. One amusing possibility would be to do this at the HTTPS layer. With HTTPS Everywhere, most HTTP connections now have a unique connection ID at the crypto layer - the session key. If you could move an HTTP connection from one IP address to another on the fly, it could be…
> One amusing possibility would be to do this at the HTTPS layer. With HTTPS Everywhere, most HTTP connections now have a unique connection ID at the crypto layer - the session key. As a network-ignoramus, who likes cryptography, I’ve long dreamt of a networking protocol where endpoints are defined, primarily, by a public key. All messages would be encrypted with the destination public key, and signed by the source p…
"If, instead, we had identified sessions using only layer 4 data, then mobile IP would have worked perfectly." Mobile IP can still work with the current infrastructure -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_IP This proposal was basically a service which would host a static IP for you (similar to the LTE structure but with IP underneath instead of L2), and forward to whatever your "real" IP was using IP-in-IP encapsu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drop the idea of ports too. Every program gets its own IP Mentioning ideas like that at work get queer looks about how it'd be impossible to configure a firewall at that point But keep going further. End up with 128 bit CPU where every byte is IP addressable. Necessary security to block random outsiders from reading your memory, but capable of potentially running various parts remotely transparently
Just treat the port as an extension of the binary address space of the IP address. No need to "drop" ports otherwise.
The folks at IETF meetings are doing a wonderful job trying to keep existing tech working. That's why you always extend old standards and rarely deprecate anything. Just look at BGP, for example.
We, the application software programmers on layers 5 through 7 with the "move fast and break things" attitude, could not ever have designed anything like the internet and keep it running as long as our current one has been.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that actually IPv6 already includes all the complexity you're talking about: complicated multicast to replace complicated broadcast, complicated routing to replace complicated bridging. The underlying problem with IPv6 is that it includes all this complexity because they expected to have to replace layer 2 bridging. But this never happened, so now we have all those features twice, which is worse.
So IPv6 in essence is the future that was stillborn - we still plan and develop our networks for an IPv4 world, and then run IPv6 on top of them, correct?
"QUEER"?!
Queer is a real, non-offensive word with a real, non-offensive meaning.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=queer+definition&t=ffip&ia=definit...
Ok, so QUIC or some other common layer 4/4+5 'Modern TCP over UDP for network compatibility' solution. Lets just throw away the concept of 'addresses' for authentication and actually use a cryptographic authentication identifier of somekind, combined with some mux iteration ID.
Check out ZeroTier It implements a virtual ethernet layer using cryptographic identities underneath. Here's the relevant section on the address computation from the manual: https://www.zerotier.com/manual.shtml#2_1_2
ppps: OK, found it, "the creation of the ARPANET was not motivated by considerations of war", Robert Taylor 2004
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d77k7j/dear-inter...
ref: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531383-300-we-can-s...
ps: Is IPV6 a bit like a camel, as in, a camel is a horse designed by committee :)
pps: This has to be the only forum on the Internet where you get modded down for a) asking a question and b) making a joke. I didn't figure my comment could trigger any camels, committees or horses reading this.
What he's really arguing for is a circuit-switched network, so that connections can be persistent over moves. He just needs a unique connection ID. One amusing possibility would be to do this at the HTTPS layer. With HTTPS Everywhere, most HTTP connections now have a unique connection ID at the crypto layer - the session key. If you could move an HTTP connection from one IP address to another on the fly, it could be…
> One amusing possibility would be to do this at the HTTPS layer. With HTTPS Everywhere, most HTTP connections now have a unique connection ID at the crypto layer - the session key. As a network-ignoramus, who likes cryptography, I’ve long dreamt of a networking protocol where endpoints are defined, primarily, by a public key. All messages would be encrypted with the destination public key, and signed by the source p…
We'll switch to IPv6, and every service will still go through port 80.