Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Sat Nov 20 13:47:31 UTC 2021

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:16:59AM +0000 Quoting Matthew Walster (matthew at walster.org):

> The "real" reason we have IPv4 around is that it works. 

It works in our present context, good enough that the pain of moving
looks bad to many people.  This is Ohta-san's argument too. 

> 3. IPv6 "port forwarding" isn't really an easy thing -- people are not used
> to each machine having a global address. 

This is the problem in a nutshell. After 27 years of destroying the
E2E model on the internet, people do not anymore understand how IP
(regardless of version) was supposed to work; any node to any node.

Why should we burden ourselves with this cumbersome and painful, useless
layer of abstraction that is "port forwarding", when the choice of
universal reachability is around the corner?

If people can set a port forward up, they can click "allow" in a
routing-based firewall interface. Only it is better, because one can
have several parallel services using well-known ports. Sometimes (most
of the time) the protocol spec has no option to change port either,
making port forwarding futile anyway. (the let's have a TXT record bunch
at it again, purposefully ignoring SRV since its inception.)

I guess juggling our pains differently is what we are doing here. What
is unthinkable to one is quite OK to someone else.

(But I am right) 
-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE           SA0XLR            +46 705 989668
We just joined the civil hair patrol!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211120/1a5a1ece/attachment.sig>