Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Oct 8, 2019, at 02:29 , Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > > Separation between address and port is vague.
> > Explain that to ICMP packets.
>
> Why do you think ICMP any different?
>
> Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in
> ICMPv4 error packets contain port numbers just after IP headers.

Show me the port number in a type 8 or type 0 packet.

> Moreover, unlike stupid ICMPv6, ICMPv4 error packets are
> guaranteed to contain 8B of inner packet payload (enough
> for 32 bit port number) after IP header.

You’re selecting a very limited subset of ICMP that happens to
contain a portion of a packet that happens to contain a port
number (or two).

> > > > 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?
>
> Applications over UDP may or may not confirm by 3 way
> handshaking or some other mechanism.
>
> That's UDP.

Yes, but the context in which you proposed this as a be-all
end-all solution doesn’t allow for the existing things that brea
when you make the assumptions you’ve obviously made.

> That's very elementary explanations on ICMP and UDP.

Yes, thanks for yet another condescending comment proving that
you completely missed the point of my post. It’s always a pleasure.

Owen