Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

Mans Nilsson wrote:

> > With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly,
> > uniquely identify *hosts*.
> >
> > However, with proper layering, *applications* only require uniqueness
> > of IP+Port, which is enough for the worldwide IPv4 network.
> >
> > As a result, NAT won the battle against IPv6.
> >
> > IPv6 addresses are free but useless.
>
> With all due respect, you think about networks. I use and build
> networks. And my experience is that IP+port is not enough.

Certainly, local uniqueness of IP addresses to identify hosts
is required even in private networks behind NAT. But, because
of layering, that's all.

I do have extensive experiences to use and build networks
with proper layering in mind.

> We cope,
> because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP /
> access provider networks that won't change.

Sounds like abstract nonsense.

> We don't cope because NAT is
> good. Hardly a workday goes past without me thinking "If I could address
> this computer uniquely I'd go home earlier and with less grey hair".

The reality is that application servers only need globally unique
and stable IP+Ports.

You can address application servers with them.

> We must do better.

As IPv6 is worse than IPv4 with NAT, feel free to propose a new
network protocol.

                                                Masataka Ohta