if not v6, what?

Wed Sep 8 02:51:25 UTC 2021

Niels Bakker wrote:

>> As for well known port, we can specify non-default port numbers
>> in URLs (I'm not sure whether it works for mailto: or not) or.
>> in the future, things like DNS SRV RRs should be helpful.
> 
> This absolutely doesn't work.

Thank you very much for your emotional and unfounded
comment.

> And DNS SRV RRs have roughly zero uptake 
> for stuff that matters (web, email).

I know SRV and other similar proposals so far are not
very compatible with URL syntax and should better be
simplified.

>> Then, to run servers at home, we only need some not-well-known
>> ports forwarded, which can be default or value added service of
>> your local ISP, just like fixed IP addresses today.

> Oh and we need to work around the whole IP reputation system that 
> governs email today.
IP reputation system must evolve to be IP+port reputation
system, which is not my problem.

> Is there even any IETF work being done on getting port forwards on a 
> device behind your immediate LAN at home?

That's overkill, because servers should have stable
addresses and ports. So, we only need statically
configured port forwarding.

But if you insist, UPnP by Microsoft has been implemented
on almost all NAT boxes. There even exists PCP.

> Do you have any more practical proposals, or..?

What are missing are practical comments.

						Masataka Ohta