----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> On 1/2/21 10:31 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >> Yup; it's messy, and in many many different ways. Won't be a snapshot >> rollout. Not a bad idea, though, if implemented correctly; time to dig >> out my notes, I guess. > > Is there a reason not to use an outbound tcp/quic connection? It was > unthinkable years ago to use TCP with DNS, but now we have DoH and the > world hasn't spiraled out of control. Heck if you made it a websocket > you'd have a built in channel for multi-media html, etc. That is, just > push a URL down and fire up a webview that the OS makes certain is in focus. Well, TCP means that the servers have to expect to have 100k's of open connections; I remember that used to be a problem. As for D'oH, sure; let's centralize the attack surface. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
