| |||||||||||||
Tent v0.1 releasedTent v0.1 releasedPosted Sep 22, 2012 7:42 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: Tent v0.1 released by job Parent article: Tent v0.1 released
Why this obsession with overloading HTTP? Because a high proportion of ISPs are obsessed with ensuring that HTTP becomes the only protocol that works reliably across the internet, by blocking any other protocol (often because of abuse). Yes, eventually that abuse will just migrate to protocols layered on HTTP, but welcome to the tragedy of the expediency of the short-term hack.
(Log in to post comments)
Tent v0.1 released Posted Sep 22, 2012 21:27 UTC (Sat) by lab (subscriber, #51153) [Link]
> Because a high proportion of ISPs are obsessed with ensuring that HTTP becomes the only protocol that works reliably across the internet, by blocking any other protocol (often because of abuse). Yes, eventually that abuse will just migrate to protocols layered on HTTP, but welcome to the tragedy of the expediency of the short-term hack.
In the absence of a dedicated +1 button, I hereby award my +1 clueful commentary to paulj, for hitting the sad nail on the sad head. It's not just ISP's by the way; it's every clueless sysadmin in the world, which is a lot.
Additional +1 to the commentary below, which rephrases the problem as "multiplexing the Internet through port 80", which is another way of describing the same sad problem.
I believe the relevant debate/topic, which accurately and pointedly frames the problem, is the one called "net neutrality". It's a very important one. Maybe put in another way: The fight against tackling real problems at the wrong level. Seing as that is pretty much a human race condition, it's a tough one.
Tent v0.1 released Posted Sep 23, 2012 10:01 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Thanks ;)
Re port 80, I think that one day “Why is there a "Must be 80" field in the Internet Protocol?” will be a question geeks ask each other to test their knowledge of arcane trivia. Few people will know why.
Tent v0.1 released Posted Sep 23, 2012 17:41 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Geeks will know about that, of course: internet may be going in the "80-port only" direction, but intranets usually have no such limitations.
Tent v0.1 released Posted Sep 24, 2012 14:03 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Meh, people are not multiplexing over port 80 (way too many caching and filtering infra which is not forbidding of protocol errors) but over port 443.
With TLS, you only have to worry endpoints speak the same syntax as you.
(and *that* is what is fuelling MITM tls attacks, since having everything crypted is intolerable to way too many organisations, that would have tolerated limited bank and passwords crypto but now whole-internet crypto)
Tent v0.1 released Posted Sep 30, 2012 1:13 UTC (Sun) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]
> I believe the relevant debate/topic, which accurately and pointedly frames the problem, is the one called "net neutrality"
Welcome to my world (and my FCC form 2000F complaint about the new Google Fiber ISP in my 'hood)
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k1...
"
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet service being deployed
"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited to using the Services for
where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not
In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from the University of
[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
--- end FCC complaint ref #12-C00422224 ---
|
|||||||||||||