nanog mailing list archives
Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported)
From: Matthew Walster <matthew () walster org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 20:03:58 +0000
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 19:41 Dave Taht, <dave.taht () gmail com> wrote:
I am deeply concerned by the onrushing move to udp for QUIC,
IMO, it's a fad that will die away. IMHO, QUIC should also one day become its own protocol number also,
If that was feasible, we would likely be using SCTP by now. TCP, UDP, and ICMP are likely to be the only reliable IP protocols for the foreseeable future on the internet. (As in, inter-domain) and with the 64 bit identifier seems plausible to nat thoroughly. So long as you're doing a proper three tuple NAT, there shouldn't be any need to expand the address space of the transport layer -- the MAP-T approach of constraining it down to e.g. 256 ports seems the most compatible. 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.
Given enough time, seemingly everything becomes HTTP :S (slightly facetious there) 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.
We've got tens of thousands of good ports on each of TCP and UDP already. No need for making more room when the existing ones work. In fact, I'd wager most people wouldn't notice if only TCP/80 and TCP/443 were working, with a DNS resolver at the NAT border. Even NTP is becoming more and more obsolete, as I understand it there are an increasing number of systems that just pull the time and date from the Date header of an HTTP request. M
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) 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)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 09)