Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)

Mike Hammett nanog at ics-il.net
Sun Jun 17 19:47:45 UTC 2018


If additional capacity were something feasible, it would be done. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Brad" <brad at persius.net> 
To: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 1:53:52 PM 
Subject: Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?) 

While I agree there are unintended consequences every time advancements are made in relation to the security and stability of the Internet- I disagree we should be rejecting their implementations. Instead, we should innovate further. 
Just because end to end encryption causes bandwidth issues for a very small number users - then perhaps they could benefit the most by these changes with additional capacity. 
-Brad 

-------- Original message --------From: Michael Hallgren <mh at xalto.net> Date: 6/17/18 11:14 (GMT-07:00) To: nanog at jack.fr.eu.org Cc: Matthew Petach <matt at petach.org>, nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?) 
Le 2018-06-17 12:40, nanog at jack.fr.eu.org a écrit : 
> Well, yes, there is, you simply have to break the end to end encryption 

Yes, (or) deny service by Policy (remains to evaluate who's happy with 
that). 

Cheers, 
mh 

> 
> On 06/17/2018 03:09 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: 
>> Except that if websites are set to HTTPS only, there's no option for 
>> disabling encryption on the client side. 
>> 
>> Matt 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 14:47 <nanog at jack.fr.eu.org> wrote: 
>> 
>>> On 06/16/2018 10:13 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
>>>> Sadly, it's just falling on deaf ears. Silicon Valley will continue 
>>>> to 
>>> think they know better than everyone else and people outside of that 
>>> bubble 
>>> will continue to be disadvantaged. 
>>> 
>>> What, again ? 
>>> Encryption is what is best for the most people. 
>>> The few that will not use it can disable it. 
>>> 
>>> No issue then. 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list