undefined

points

[-]

while i agree with your sentiment, i personally think that the foundational design pattern of the internet as a network is highly decentralized. once you get public IP space and the infrastructure required to talk BGP, making decentralized designs is actually quite easy.

The issue that ipv4 exhausting and "solutions" around it like NAT are making it very hard for actual users (bussiness, people etc) to get access to public IP space without strings attached.

IPv6 solves a lot of this, especially because IP space is so massive LIR's don't need to be so spare with giving out address space.

The far larger issue we have is that applications are ingrained in a client server mindset, in which big incumbents want to have this architecture because it forces control from the server towards to client. And control usually also means having the data itself, which is where the real value lies.

by __MatrixMan__8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I agree that assumptions on the application side are the bigger issue, but it's less about encouraging client/server architecture in general. It's often very helpful, even among peers, to drop into a mode where somebody is wearing the client hat and somebody else is wearing the server hat.

The sin here is the hierarchy imposed by SSL and its infatuation with server names. Its says: these people are lords, they can wear the server hat. As for the peasants, your client hats are over there. If we catch a peasant wearing a server hat, the browsers will make them look like a criminal.

Our applications have evolved accordingly.