nanog mailing list archives
Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported)
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:41:50 -0500
I am deeply concerned by the onrushing move to udp for QUIC, with udp the former province of voip, gaming, request/response and videoconferencing traffic. I certainly see natted udp ports get used up rapidly by various tools, and also see timeouts for reuse often below 30sec. IMHO, QUIC should also one day become its own protocol number also, and with the 64 bit identifier seems plausible to nat thoroughly. One day all of google could anycast 8.8.8.0/24 just for quic traffic and retire other ip addresses. UDPLite is also easily nat-able and widely available. It's original use case is now gone, but it would be straightforward to just treat it as another UDP. Lastly, if we were to look at using up some more protocol space in the next 20 years, adding 16 or more udp-like protocols would extend things also.
Current thread:
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock), (continued)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 16)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Seth David Schoen (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John Gilmore (Mar 09)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Beecher (Mar 09)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tim Howe (Mar 09)
- V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) David Conrad (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Joe Greco (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Saku Ytti (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Masataka Ohta (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Matthew Walster (Mar 10)
- Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) Dave Taht (Mar 10)
- Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) William Herrin (Mar 10)
- Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) Matthew Walster (Mar 10)
- Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) Grzegorz Janoszka (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Joe Greco (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Saku Ytti (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Ca By (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Tom Beecher (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Jay Hennigan (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 09)