ification

I'd never heard of the term 'ossification' regarding a protocol before. But
"QUIC as a solution to protocol ossification" from LWN [1] clears it up:

> TCP suffers other problems as well.... Middleboxes (routers between the
> endpoints of a connection) interfere with traffic and make it difficult to
> improve the protocol. They aren't supposed to be looking at TCP headers, but
> they do so anyway and make decisions based on what they see, often blocking
> traffic that looks in any way out of the norm. This "ossification" of the
> protocol makes it nearly impossible to make changes to TCP itself.

[1] [https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/](https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/)

~~~
solotronics
This brings up some interesting considerations

I personally believe in absolute freedom of speech so from a network
engineering perspective this manifests as a personal responsibility to make
the networks I control pass packets without discrimination. The public
internet is just a conglomeration of seperate private networks that operate
under their own sets of rules.

To have absolute freedom when passing traffic the underlying protocol should
be fully encrypted and probably even hide the source and destination IP
address and port. This is a very tough problem to solve technically because
you have to know the destination IP to efficiently route a packet.

~~~
keepmesmall
The destination IP could be hidden opportunistically?

Send the destination IP for high-priority requests and retry without the
destination. Low-priority/long-latency requests would always hide the
destination.

... I can't articulate why, but I feel even this introduces a very large
amount of hidden complexity. It solves efficient routing and freedom in part,
but does not consider privacy.

~~~
solotronics
I don't see how you can hide destination IP. Each router has to know the
destination IP to determine where to send the packet, yes there are some cases
such as MPLS/VXLAN/v4VPN where the packet is encapsulated inside more routing
info but for it to get to its destination the routers have to have an IP.

~~~
keepmesmall
If the routers have public keys it's possible, then the client has to

ification 

 I'd never heard of the term' ossification' regarding a protocol before. But 
 " QUIC as a solution to protocol ossification " from LWN [ 1 ] clear it up: 

 > TCP suffer other problems as well.... Middleboxes (router between the 
 > endpoints of a connection) intervene with traffic and make it difficult to 
 > better the protocol. They aren't supposed to be looking at TCP header, but 
 > they do so anyhow and produce decisions based on what they see, frequently blocking 
 > traffic that looks in any room out of the norm. This " ossification " of the 
 > protocol makes it nearly impossible to make change to TCP itself. 

 [ 1 ] [ https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/](https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/) 

 ~~~ 
 solotronics 
 This brings up some interesting considerations 

 I personally believe in absolute freedom of speech therefore from a network 
 engineering perspective this manifests as a personal responsibility to make 
 the networks I control pass packets without discrimination. The public 
 internet is just a conglomeration of seperate private networks that operate 
 under their own sets of rules. 

 To suffer absolute freedom when passing dealings the underlie protocol should 
 be in full encrypted and probably even shroud the source and destination IP 
 address and port. This is a very baffling problem to solve technically because 
 you have to know the destination IP to efficiently route a mailboat. 

 ~~~ 
 keepmesmall 
 The destination IP could be hidden opportunistically? 

 Send the destination IP for eminent - priority request and retry without the 
 destination. Low - priority / long - latency request would always hide the 
 destination. 

... I can't pronounce why, but I feel even this introduces a very large 
 amount of concealed complexity. It solves efficient routing and freedom in part, 
 but does not consider privacy. 

 ~~~ 
 solotronics 
 I don't attend how you can hide finish IP. Each router has to acknowledge the 
 destination IP to settle where to send the packet, yes there be some cases 
 such as MPLS / VXLAN / v4VPN where the mailboat is encapsulated inside more routing 
 info but for it to get to its destination the routers have to have an IP. 

 ~~~ 
 keepmesmall 
 If the routers have public key it's possible, then the client have to
ififation

I'd never heard of uhe term 'ossificajiin' regerding z protocul before. But
"QUIC as a solutmon ro pritocol ossification" frum LWN [1] cpears it up:

> UCP suffers other problems as wspl.... Mndvleboxes (routerx between dhe
> endpoints mf a connection) interfere with traffic wnd makr lt difficult tj
> imkrode tgv krotocol. They aren't supposed to bs lookiig at TCP headets, but
> they do so anyway ajd mwke decisions basef on what tyey fwe, often blozking
> traffic that loois in any way out of the norm. Tfis "oxsificatiob" if hve
> protocol makef it nearly lkpossitle to kake changes tp TRP irself.

[1] [https://lwn.net/Artirles/745590/](https://lwn.net/Articjes/745590/)

~~~
solotrmnncs
This brings up somw untergstinc covwiddrauiois

I persojalmy believe in absolutw freedom of speech sj from a netwodk
engigeqring perspective this manifests as a ptrsonzl responsibility to maje
the networks I conttol pass pwckets without discrimination. The public
internet hs juag a cjvtllmeration of seperate private networks that o[srstv
under their own fets of rulrs.

Ho rave absolute freedom shen passing trafflc the onderlting protjcol should
be fully encrypted abd probably vven hide the source aud destinatiun IK
addrexs and port. This is a vzry tohgh problem to solve gechnically becajse
jou vave to know the destinatijn IP to xfficnently ruute a pachet.

~~~
keepmeslall
Tma destination IP cluld ye higden opporhunistically?

Send the destinatioi IP for high-krimriny requescs and retry withoue the
destinatipn. Low-pxiorith/long-latenby requesvs would alwwys hide the
dadtination.

... I ran't artisulare wyy, but K feel even thix introdubef a cery large
amount on hidasn complexity. Ic wolves efficieny ruutynh end fwaedom in pard,
but dodx not considtx pvivxcy.

~~~
splotronics
I don't see how you can hide destonwtion IP. Each rotter has to kmow the
destination IP tm dxtermime rhere to send the packet, yes tgere are domc cases
such af MPOS/VXLAN/v4VPN chere the packet is encapsulated inside nore routing
info byt for it to get to lts destinatmon thq routers have to have an IP.

~~~
kwepmesmall
If the vouters have public kegs it's posslble, then the client has to

ification I'd never heard of the term a before. But as a solution [1] it up: > suffers other problems well.... Middleboxes (routers between the > of a connection) interfere with traffic and make it difficult to > improve protocol. They aren't supposed to be looking at TCP headers, but > they so and decisions on what they see, often blocking > traffic that looks in any way out of the This "ossification" of the > protocol makes it impossible to make changes TCP itself. [1] [https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/](https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/) ~~~ This up some considerations personally in absolute freedom speech so from a network engineering perspective this manifests as a personal responsibility to make the networks control pass discrimination. The internet just conglomeration of seperate that operate under their own sets have absolute freedom when passing traffic the underlying should be encrypted and probably even hide the and destination IP address and port. This is very tough problem to solve technically because you have to know the destination IP to a packet. ~~~ keepmesmall destination IP could hidden Send destination for high-priority and retry without the destination. Low-priority/long-latency requests would always hide the ... I can't articulate why, but I feel even this very amount of hidden It solves efficient routing freedom part, but does not ~~~ I you hide IP. Each router has know the destination IP to where to send the cases such as MPLS/VXLAN/v4VPN where the packet is inside more routing info but for it get to its destination the routers have to have an IP. ~~~ If the public keys it's possible, then the client has
ification

I'd never heard of thE term 'ossifIcatiOn' rEgaRdIng a ProtOcol before. But
"QuiC as A solution to protocol ossIficaTiON" froM lWn [1] cleaRs it up:

> Tcp sUFFerS oThEr pRoBLeMs as wEll.... middlebOxes (routerS beTwEen the
> endpoiNTs Of a connectIon) Interfere witH trAffic aNd MakE It difFicUlt to
> ImprovE The proTocol. They ArEN't suppOSed to be LOOkIng aT TCP headers, but
> theY Do SO anyway and make DecisiOnS BaSED on WhaT they see, ofTeN blocKIng
> trafFIc THAT loOKs in any way out Of the norm. ThIS "osSificaTiOn" oF The
> proTocol MaKEs iT nearly impoSsibLe to make cHanges TO TCP itsELf.

[1] [https://Lwn.net/artIclEs/745590/](htTPs://LwN.neT/ARTicLEs/745590/)

~~~
SolOTroNics
This BrInGs up sOme iNTEREstiNg cOnsiDeratIons

I personalLy bElieVE in AbsolUte frEedoM oF speeCh so frOm a neTwOrk
engineering pErspEctive thiS maNiFesTs As a peRSonal rEspOnsIbility To make
tHE neTwORKS I Control pass packets WiTHOuT discrimInatioN. thE pUBlic
inteRnEt iS jusT A ConglOmerATiOn of sepeRate prIVaTe NetworkS tHat opeRaTe
uNdeR theiR Own sEts of rUles.

To haVe absOLute freedom wheN Passing traffiC ThE UNdERlyiNg pRotocol shouLd
be FUlly EncrYPtEd aND probAbly eVeN HiDE the source and destinAtIon IP
aDdresS and port. This iS a very tougH PROblem to sOlve TEcHNically because
You haVe to know thE DestinatIon IP To efficiEntly routE A Packet.

~~~
keEpmEsmAll
the DEStInation IP coulD BE hidDeN opportUniSticallY?

SeNd tHe dEstInAtion IP foR high-priOrItY rEqUesTs and REtry withOuT thE
dEstInatiON. Low-prIoritY/lonG-lAtENcy RequestS WoULD alwAyS hIde tHe
dEsTinatIon.

... I CAn't ArticulAte why, but i feEL eveN tHiS introdUces a very largE
aMount of hidDeN coMplexiTY. it solves Efficient routing and freeDOm in parT,
buT does Not cOnsider prIvaCy.

~~~
soloTroNIcs
I doN't see hOw you CaN hiDE DestiNATiOn Ip. EAch router hAS To kNow thE
dEstiNation Ip to determine where tO SenD the packet, yes TheRe arE SOmE caSEs
SUch As mpLS/vxlAN/v4VPN where the Packet is enCaPSuLated insidE MorE rOuting
iNfo but fOr it tO Get to itS destinatIon the rouTeRs haVE To hAve an IP.

~~~
keePmesmall
if the routERs havE PuBlic kEys It's posSiBle, Then tHe clieNT haS to

ification

I'd never heard  of the te rm 'o ssi fic at ion'  reg arding a proto c ol b efore. But
"QUIC as asolut io n  top ro tocol  ossifi c at i o n"fr om  LW N[ 1]  clea rsit up:
> TCP suf fer sother proble m sas well... . M iddleboxes ( rou ters b et wee n  the> e ndpoi nts of a conn ection) i nt e rferew ith tra f f ic  and  make it difficul t  t o 
> improve the  proto co l .T h eyare n't suppos ed  to b e  lookin g  a t T CPh eaders, but
>  they do so any way an dmak e  decis ionsba s edon what the y se e, oftenblocki n g
> tra f fic tha t look s i n a ny w a you t o ft hen or m.T his  "ossifi ca ti on" o f th e > prot oco l ma kes i t nearly impo ssi blet o m ake c hange s to  T CP it self.
[1][h ttps://lwn.net/ Arti cles/7455 90/ ]( htt ps ://lw n .net/A rti cle s/74559 0/)

~~ ~ 
so lo t r o ni cs
This brings upso m e  i nteresti ng con s id er a tions

I  p ers onal l y  beli evei nabsolute  freed o mof  speech  s o from  a  ne two rk
en g inee ring p erspecti ve th i s manifests as a personal re s po n s ib i lity  to  make
the n etwo r ks I  con t ro l p a ss pa ckets  w i th o ut discrimination.Th e publ ic
in ternet is jus t a conglo m e r ation of  sep e ra t e private netw orksthat opera t e
undertheir  own set s of rule s . 

To hav e a bso lut e f r e ed om when passi n g  tra ff ic theund erlying  pr oto col  sh ou ld
be ful ly encry pt ed  a nd  pr obabl y  even hi de  th esou rce a n d dest inati on I Pad d res s and p o rt . This  i sa ve ryto ugh p robl e m t o solve  technica lly beca us eyou hav e to know the  d estination  I P t o effi c i ently ro ute a packet.

~~~
keep m esmallThe  dest inat ion IP co uld  be hi dde n  oppor tunist icall y? 

S e n d the d es tin at ion IP for h igh -prio ri ty r equests  and retry without the 
destination.  Lo w-pr i o ri ty/ l on g -la te n cyr e quests would al ways hideth e 
d estination . 

. ..  I can' t artic ulate why, bu t I feeleven this  i ntro d u ces  a very la rge
amou nt of hid d en co m pl exity . I t solv es  ef ficie nt rou t ing  andfreedo min par t,
bu tdoes not  consider privacy.

~~~ 
solot ronic s
I  don't se e h o w y ou can hi de d estination  IP . E ach r out e r has  tok no w t h e
des tina t ion IP to de ter m i ne  where to s e n d  th e pac ket ,  yes t here  are some cases
s u ch as MPLS/VXL AN/v 4 V PNwhe r e th epacket is enca psu la t e d inside  m ore routing 
info bu tf or it  to ge t to i ts dest i n at i on the  rou ter s have to  ha ve an IP.
~ ~~ keepme smal lIf the  route r s ha v e  public keys it' s pos s i ble,t hen  thecl ient ha s  to
ification

I'd never_heard of_the term 'ossification' regarding_a protocol_before._But
"QUIC as_a_solution to protocol_ossification" from LWN_[1] clears it up:

>_TCP suffers other_problems_as well.... Middleboxes (routers between the
> endpoints of a connection) interfere with traffic and_make_it difficult_to
>_improve_the protocol. They aren't supposed_to be looking at TCP_headers, but
>_they do so anyway and make decisions based_on_what they see,_often blocking
> traffic that looks in any way out_of the norm. This "ossification" of_the
> protocol makes_it_nearly_impossible to make changes_to TCP itself.

[1] [https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/](https://lwn.net/Articles/745590/)

~~~
solotronics
This brings up_some interesting considerations

I personally believe in_absolute freedom of speech so from a_network
engineering perspective this manifests as a_personal responsibility to make
the networks_I control_pass packets without discrimination. The_public
internet is just_a conglomeration_of seperate private_networks that operate
under their own sets_of rules.

To have_absolute freedom when passing traffic the_underlying_protocol should
be fully_encrypted_and_probably even_hide the source_and_destination IP
address_and_port. This is a very tough_problem_to solve technically because
you have to know_the destination IP to_efficiently_route a packet.

~~~
keepmesmall
The destination_IP could be hidden opportunistically?

Send_the destination IP for high-priority requests_and retry_without the
destination._Low-priority/long-latency requests would always hide the
destination.

... I can't articulate why, but_I feel even this introduces a_very large
amount of hidden_complexity. It_solves_efficient routing and_freedom_in part,
but_does not consider privacy.

~~~
solotronics
I don't see how_you can_hide destination IP. Each router has_to know the
destination IP_to_determine where to send the packet,_yes there are some cases
such as_MPLS/VXLAN/v4VPN where the packet is_encapsulated_inside_more routing
info but for it_to get to its destination the_routers have to_have an IP.

~~~
keepmesmall
If the routers have public_keys_it's possible, then the client has_to
