please read the attached doc and give your feedback…

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I’m understanding this right, it would require every router to effectively be a proxy… it’s tcp but with every packet masqueraded.

    Honestly, hard pass. Knowing the source IP (i.e. where things are actually destined) is useful information for network reliability and performance. It’s part of what makes the Internet so reliable, self healing, and snappy.

    It’s also still important to be able to just say “no I don’t want anymore traffic from this machine.” IP bans can be used to protect more expensive processing power from misbehaving systems. I don’t want to block an entire state (or literally everyone) because one machine was misbehaving (if you can only see one node back, you can only block that one node which is now responsible for all traffic).

    This wouldn’t even provide privacy from the kinds of folks (governments) that I’d assume you’re trying to protect from. They’d still be able to setup a surveillance network inside of ISPs to watch the exchange from A -> B -> C and back. The reason Tor works so well is it’s anarchy, anyone becomes an ISP node despite their status on the physical network. There becomes too much to backdoor and too much to watch (without spending billions or trillions to gain a majority share of the Tor nodes worldwide).

    • Darth_vader__@discuss.onlineOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I’m understanding this right, it would require every router to effectively be a proxy

      EXACTLY

      They’d still be able to setup a surveillance network inside of ISPs to watch the exchange from A -> B -> C

      It will be super hard as the packets are not easily uniquely identifiable, and basically impossible if multiple countries are involved. It’s the same like trying to take down/block Tor.