3 ms·

> Nodes, not interfaces, have IP addresses, so you can use multiple paths. Isn't this difference academic/software? What is the crucial point here that can no

> Nodes, not interfaces, have IP addresses, so you can use multiple paths. Isn't this difference academic/software? What is the crucial point here that can no longer be implemented as an abstraction? (Not a networking specialist so this might just be my ignorance speaking.) > You can validate a source IP address by pinging it with a random number. Good idea, but I suspect this is the type of feature that might quickly fall prey to implementation laziness/incompetence, or in other words, enough implementers would both ignore it and not use it until it became unreliable. > Routers will accept a "shut up" request I like this idea but couldn't this system be abused by a malicious man in the middle to much more easily hinder connectivity to a targeted system? The man in the middle can fake the validation too... > Mail is not forwarded I don't think this is a good idea. People would quickly invent a forwarding protocol if one didn't exist. I mean, I see what you're trying to do here, but I don't think you would succeed on this one.

Buttons840 5y ago
>> Routers will accept a "shut up" request > I like this idea but couldn't this system be abused by a malicious man in the middle to much more easily hinder connectivity to a targeted system? The man in the middle can fake the validation too... I think of it more as a "I'm just ignoring these, you mine as well stop sending them" request. After all, a man-in-the-middle can already just drop the packets.
- benlivengood 5y ago
  > I think of it more as a "I'm just ignoring these, you mine as well stop sending them" request. After all, a man-in-the-middle can already just drop the packets. Some MITM can only inspect and forge traffic, not drop it (e.g. NSA tapping fiber)
twobitshifter 5y ago
Re: mail - I believe what gp is saying is that mail will be sent directly - made possible by the larger IP address space. Once it’s on your device you can copy and move it wherever. This would actually match the original design of email before it became the case where everything was via pop and imap. Of course the biggest flaw with email was not expecting spam. My change would be accepting messages only from known senders or those who have done the needed “work” https://www.w3.org/2003/10/acquaintance-protocol/ https://www.w3.org/2003/10/acquaintance-protocol/

Buttons840 5y ago

>> Routers will accept a "shut up" request > I like this idea but couldn't this system be abused by a malicious man in the middle to much more easily hinder connectivity to a targeted system? The man in the middle can fake the validation too... I think of it more as a "I'm just ignoring these, you mine as well stop sending them" request. After all, a man-in-the-middle can already just drop the packets.

benlivengood 5y ago
> I think of it more as a "I'm just ignoring these, you mine as well stop sending them" request. After all, a man-in-the-middle can already just drop the packets. Some MITM can only inspect and forge traffic, not drop it (e.g. NSA tapping fiber)

twobitshifter 5y ago

Re: mail - I believe what gp is saying is that mail will be sent directly - made possible by the larger IP address space. Once it’s on your device you can copy and move it wherever. This would actually match the original design of email before it became the case where everything was via pop and imap. Of course the biggest flaw with email was not expecting spam. My change would be accepting messages only from known senders or those who have done the needed “work” https://www.w3.org/2003/10/acquaintance-protocol/ https://www.w3.org/2003/10/acquaintance-protocol/