From: philip+usenet@paeps.cx   
      
   Skybuck Flying  wrote:   
   > "Philip Paeps"  wrote in message   
   > news:slrni8h9qs.hou.philip+usenet@rincewind.paeps.cx...   
   > > Skybuck Flying  wrote:   
   > Main question is:   
   >   
   > Do existing devices simply copy the existing TypeOfService field ?   
      
   Routers try not to "copy" anything.  But the bits of the TOS field you're   
   proposing to use are already used for ECN and will not forward packed   
   unchanged, in other words.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   This will break TCP.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Have you bought any (serious) routers lately?  If you have any significant   
   amount of traffic to forward, you don't want to keep state for all (or most,   
   or preferably even any) of it.   
      
   >> 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 ;)   
      
   But there's active research and development on the project.  And unlike your   
   scheme, it doesn't break TCP and it doesn't require ISPs to burn a fortune on   
   routers which spend a lot of time tinkering with packets and remembering them   
   instead of forwarding them as quickly as possible.   
      
    - Philip   
      
   --   
   Philip Paeps                                    Please don't email any replies   
   philip@paeps.cx                                     I follow the newsgroup.   
      
     > Yep, tis true.  Hehehe.  Darn typos. :-)   
      
     They get everywherw.   
     	-- Nick Shaw and Paul Osborne on alt.culture.ukc.misc   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)