IPv6 Pain Experiment
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Oct 8 06:59:23 UTC 2019
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
More information about the NANOG
mailing list