[168266] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "trivial" changes to DNS (was: OpenNTPProject.org)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cb B)
Thu Jan 16 13:23:28 2014
In-Reply-To: <20140116181306.GA27689@pob.ytti.fi>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:20:15 -0800
From: Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 16, 2014 10:16 AM, "Saku Ytti" <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
>
> On (2014-01-16 09:19 -0800), Cb B wrote:
>
> > I hope QUIC does not stay on UDP, as it may find itself cut off at the
> > legs.
>
> Any new L4 would need to support both flavours, over UDP and native. Over
UDP
> is needed to be deployable right now and be working to vast majority of
the
> end users.
> Native-only would present chicken and egg problem, goog/fb/amzn/msft etc
won't
> add support to it, because failure rate is too high, and stateful box
vendors
> won't add support, because no customer demand.
>
> And what becomes to deployment pace, good technologies which give
benefits to
> end users can and have been deployed very fast.
> IPv6 does not give benefit to end users, EDNS does not give benefit to end
> users.
>
> QUIC/MinimaLT/IETF-transport-standardized-version would give benefit to
end
> users, all persistent connections like ssh would keep running when you
jump
> between networks.
> You could in your homeserver specifically allow /you/ to connect to any
> service, regardless of your IP address, because key is your identity, not
your
> IP address. (So sort of LISPy thing going on here, we'd make IP more
low-level
> information which it should be, it wouldn't be identity anymore)
> Parity packets have potential to give much better performance in packet
loss
> conditions. Packet pacing seems much better on fast to slow file
transfers.
>
> --
> ++ytti
>
Then let's go all the way with ILNP. I like that.
CB
