Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Måns Nilsson <mansaxel () besserwisser org>]

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka 
Ohta (mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp):
 
> > We cope,
> > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP /
> > access provider networks that won't change.
>
> Sounds like abstract nonsense.

No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. 
 
> > We don't cope because NAT is
> > good. Hardly a workday goes past without me thinking "If I could address
> > this computer uniquely I'd go home earlier and with less grey hair".
>
> The reality is that application servers only need globally unique
> and stable IP+Ports.
>
> You can address application servers with them.

If, and that is a big IF, they're designed for that. Hint: They're not,
and I'm required to deploy technology compatible with older systems and
systems outside my control.  It would be far easier for me if I could
continue with the original assumption -- IP addresses are identifiers.

I know you will immediately state that if I change everything else except
the IP addressing scheme at 32 bits plus 16 bits of port space (which in
and of itself is a change; granted more so in terms of service location),
I will be fine. But I only want to change the addressing layer. The rest
works fine. And is a bigger mess to alter to your idea. 
 
> > We must do better.
>
> As IPv6 is worse than IPv4 with NAT, feel free to propose a new
> network protocol.

In your application, that assertion on worseness might be true. In my,
where I value the E2E principle higher, no, I think it is not. 


-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE           SA0XLR            +46 705 989668
I used to be a FUNDAMENTALIST, but then I heard about the HIGH
RADIATION LEVELS and bought an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: