> On Aug 1, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Tony Arcieri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Having a solution inside TCP would protect apps that aren't protected, but
>> by using "cleartext" port numbers we are also increasing the risk that those
>> connections will be blocked by DPI devices.
>
> Good? That would provide another impetus to move to port 443, but in the
> meantime an awful lot of traffic is still served over port 80, and port 80 is
> definitely the friend of anyone trying to monitor someone.
>
> What do we do about the port 80 problem?
Stop using it ( or redirect it to 443 at the server).
Any traffic over that port that doesn't look like http IMO is likely to be
blocked by anyone wanting to track.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
