XPost: alt.winsock.programming, comp.arch, comp.dcom.lans.ethernet   
   XPost: sci.crypt   
   From: philip+usenet@paeps.cx   
      
   Skybuck Flying  wrote:   
   > it could also be an add-on option, the flag bit is to be preferred because   
   > it would require little changes to simple ip implementations.   
      
   Note that requiring *any* changes to existing implementations is pretty much a   
   no-go.  There are plenty of IP devices out there which can never be upgraded.   
      
   > To me this idea seems usuable and workable in practice... so far I have   
   > described two little potential problems and possible solutions... conflicts   
   > between translated ip's and real ip's which would be rare, in such case the   
   > privacy option/path could be dropped.   
      
   Your scheme requires that routers process packets in software and keep a table   
   of translations which could potentially grow very large, particularly since it   
   is impossible for routers to know when translations could be 'expired'.   
      
   There are plenty of methods for enabling privacy on a higher (and much more   
   practical) level.  Take a look at the Tor project, for instance.   
      
    - Philip   
      
   --   
   Philip Paeps                                    Please don't email any replies   
   philip@paeps.cx                                     I follow the newsgroup.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)