nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:41:07 -0700
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Masataka Ohta < mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
William Herrin wrote:I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least intheory,would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator intervention.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. If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiate the link with a name (e.g. dns name), negotiate a connection ID and continue with the connection ID. No ports, no port scanning. QUIC comes pretty close to getting it right. -Bill -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)