3 ms·
Except educating users on how to install their overlay network of choice. And how many will they need to install? Will everyone install a generic one that all
by kiallmacinnes 8y ago
Except educating users on how to install their overlay network of choice.
And how many will they need to install? Will everyone install a generic one that all software just works with? Kinda sounds like IPv6, just with the added network in network overheads, and a competitor (IPv6) that's years ahead in terms of real world deployment.
And then there's the suggestion ISPs could run these popular overlay network nodes, that customers don't even need IP. I'll pass on slicing up the internet into walled gardens that's ISPs get to choose which overlay networks you can access!
- zzzcpan 8y agoWeb browsers could bundle everything with the next update or use the one already installed, see tor browser bundle for example. No need to educate users. Other software could rely on preinstalled daemons and guide users to "install the internet" on first use if necessary. And ISPs shouldn't be able to do any harm with those transport nodes, they shouldn't be able to even see what kind of stuff those nodes proxy.
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoHow is this any better than IPv6? Each browser having its own overlay sounds like the good old days of AOL. Ignoring that massive issue, which daemons get installed? Who installs them? Who updates them? End users won't. So it's up to the Software+OS vendor and ISP - Just like IPv6. Don't get me wrong, IPv6 has been, so far, a pretty epic failure in terms of adoption. But your plan seems to put it all in the hands of the exact same people, but at the same time, gives them a massive incentive to partition the internet into a whole bunch of tiny walled gardens. Why should this turn out any better than IPv6?