nanog mailing list archives
Re: if not v6, what?
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:52:02 +1000
On 8 Sep 2021, at 12:51, Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote: 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).
Which is why there is HTTPS and SVCB. If you look at your recursive server logs you are likely to see queries for HTTPS being made as browsers are starting to make queries for HTTPS (a.k.a. TYPE65).
I know SRV and other similar proposals so far are not very compatible with URL syntax and should better be simplified.
The only thing difficult to map was non-default ports and that could easily have been addressed. Remember SRV required a seperate RFC to specify how to map existing services on to it. HTTPS just prefixed the label "_<port>”. That could have easily been done with SRV. HTTPS and SVBC are just SRV on steroids.
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.
But how much has been implemented in CGNs and how many ISP’s enable it if it is implemented? Getting IPv4 continue to work just add layer upon layer of hacks which we are all continuing to pay for. While we debate more and more services are enabling IPv6 and the traffic is shifting to IPv6.
Do you have any more practical proposals, or..?What are missing are practical comments. Masataka Ohta
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 19)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC sronan (Sep 06)
- if not v6, what? Michael Thomas (Sep 05)
- Re: if not v6, what? Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: if not v6, what? Eric Kuhnke (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Mark Tinka (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Masataka Ohta (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Niels Bakker (Sep 07)
- Re: fun with ports, was if not v6, what? John Levine (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Masataka Ohta (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Mark Andrews (Sep 07)
- Re: if not v6, what? Masataka Ohta (Sep 08)
- Re: if not v6, what? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Carsten Bormann (Sep 04)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 05)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Grant Taylor via NANOG (Sep 06)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Sep 06)