Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

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

Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

> I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed 
> many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way
> forward we have.

A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you.

> But, assuming you're expanding the address space, the simplest 
> solution is to add the additional bits addresses at the end.

Sure.

> On the other hand, this sure seems similar to what we do today with
> CGNAT and similar today since there are already 64K endpoints in
> both TCP and UDP per ./32 of IP....

The following draft makes it more explicit:

        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp-10
        The A+P Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage
        R. Bush, Ed.

        Instead of assigning a single IPv4 address to a
        single customer device, we propose to extend the
        address field by using bits from the port number
        range in the TCP/UDP header as additional end point
        identifiers,

A+P is equivalent to NAT with end to end transparency.

                                                Masataka Ohta