From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: michael at kjorling.se (Michael =?utf-8?B?S2rDtnJsaW5n?=) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 19:28:21 +0000 Subject: [COFF] OSI stack In-Reply-To: <0572e855-9aac-337f-4f1b-66dda3839e14@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20190206174913.E518318C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <0572e855-9aac-337f-4f1b-66dda3839e14@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <20190207192821.7hjsf6atfyi747sb@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> On 7 Feb 2019 11:07 -0700, from coff at minnie.tuhs.org (Grant Taylor via COFF): > The only thing that comes to mind is IPsec's ESP(50) and AH(51) which—as I > understand it—are filtered too frequently because they aren't ICMP(1), > TCP(6), or UDP(17). Too many firewalls interfere to the point that they are > unreliable. While different, I think that the introduction of the more advanced IPv6 address formats into DNS also qualifies. I don't recall off hand if bit-string labels (which were used for reverse lookups) or the A6 RRtype (for forward lookups) was the more problematic one, but I do recall that both had issues that made real-world adoption non-trivial in the best of cases. -- Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael at kjorling.se “The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person is to think you know what you’re doing.” (Bret Victor)