4 ms·
> many will only allow captive DNS That's an anti-feature, something one shouldn't even call internet access. Engineering entire protocol stacks around it soun
by the8472 7y ago
> many will only allow captive DNS
That's an anti-feature, something one shouldn't even call internet access. Engineering entire protocol stacks around it sounds like enshrining it as if it were good practice.
It's reinforcing an inadequate equilibrium.
- baroffoos 7y agoSo you are left with the choice of making something that works right now and will provide enhanced privacy for everyone or attempting to fight middleboxes and corporate configs and see a similar rate of adoption as ipv6. Once absolutely everything is running through opaque https requests we might see middleboxes go away since they aren't able to do anything anymore.
- anoncake 7y ago> So you are left with the choice of making something that works right now and will provide enhanced privacy for everyone or attempting to fight middleboxes and corporate configs and see a similar rate of adoption as ipv6. Actually solving the problem is always better than enshrining it by providing an ugly workaround. Even if it takes more time. Imagine how quickly IPv6 would have been adopted if NAT didn't exist. DoH is kinda like that, a cludge that ultimately hinders progress.
- tssva 7y agoWhat you are most likely to see is more corporate deployment of middleboxes that MITM https requests and an overall reduction in privacy for those on corporate networks.