nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:59:23 +0900
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.
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.
negotiate a connection ID and continue with the connection ID.
No ports, no port scanning.
Only to replace well known port numbers by well known connection IDs and port scanning by connection ID scanning? > QUIC comes pretty close to getting it right. It's another second system syndrome. Keep using TCP/UDP as is except for port number length. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- 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)