XPost: alt.winsock.programming, comp.arch, comp.dcom.lans.ethernet   
   XPost: sci.crypt   
   From: IntoTheFuture@hotmail.com   
      
   "Philip Paeps"  wrote in message   
   news:slrni8h9qs.hou.philip+usenet@rincewind.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.   
      
   The idea is to keep using those old devices and add new devices which would   
   enable   
   the privacy.   
      
   Only one device in the path is needed to give some form of privacy.   
      
   Existing devices would remain compatible.   
      
   This is something which needs to be tested or looked into, to see how   
   existing   
   devices would behave with the new slightly different packets.   
      
   Main question is:   
      
   Do existing devices simply copy the existing TypeOfService field ?   
      
   >> 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'.   
      
   The translations expire after 5 minutes of not being used anymore.   
      
   When a translation occurs it's "expiration timer" gets reset.   
      
   How much memory is needed remains to be seen, how much memory do routers   
   have these days ?   
      
   The cost of memory is not that high... an ISP wanting to provide some form   
   of privacy could   
   add a slightly more expensive router.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Tor ain't that great, last thing I heard about it it got broken and   
   compromised ;)   
      
   Bye,   
     Skybuck.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)