nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 01:11:28 -0700
On Oct 7, 2019, at 23:59 , Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote: William Herrin wrote:I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P, which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is better.Not a fan of port numbers.Separation between address and port is vague.
Explain that to ICMP packets.
If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiate the link with a name (e.g. dns name),The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts can confirm IP address is true by 3 way handshaking.
And UDP? Owen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)