4 ms·
Protecting every single packet on the internet... Isn't this why we have IPSec? I would also say he misses the mark on why https/SSL is underemployed: Either y
by trezor 17y ago
Protecting every single packet on the internet... Isn't this why we have IPSec?
I would also say he misses the mark on why https/SSL is underemployed: Either you have to pay outrageous sums of money for wildcard certificates or you have to have a public IP for every domain you want hosted.
Had https allowed sending host-headers etc before authenticating (like with TLS) this would not have been a problem, but given the current state of IPv4 addressing space and the refusal to support TLS in the https protocol, this is unlikely to change any time soon. At least not before IPv6 goes mainstream. IPv6 which mandates that IPSec must be supported.
I'm not sure I see how this effort is being particularly useful. Am I missing something obvious here?
- eggnet 17y agoIPSec probably introduces too much latency for DNS. As far as I know, DNSCurve doesn't add any additional packets to the transfer. One packet request, one packet response. I doubt IPSec works that way.
- wmf 17y agoIPv6 doesn't help, since it doesn't mandate any particular key management (and BTNS isn't even finished), nor does it mandate that IPsec be enabled.