Interesting idea. One thought would be add encryption and signing to the routing. Meaning unless you have the right permissions, your packets won't even get to the destination.
I'd much rather routing be about getting data from one known point to another.
A /session/ should be able to be serviced by multiple routes, maybe with a preference (use the cheaper ones first, the faster ones first, etc) or maybe over time (in the case of mobile).
Having connectivity based at the session level and having a single server be 'multi-homed' (many addresses, each conforming to a different outbound link) would peel complexity back from the lower layers and allow them to focus on being simple, robust, and easy to diagnose.
It would also move control and management back up to higher layers, and as recently shown with a description of Google's core network devices, back to the end points where a larger and more complete view can be used to determine the best overall solution.
I think my though comes from the use case where you have thing1 and thing2 that you want to be able to communicate via the internet. But you would rather not be accessible from other devices.
I’m not sure I follow why this would be desirable. As a sender of a packet, why would I care who routes my (encrypted) packet to its destination? Why would I want to restrict the number of possible routes from me to the receiver?
