IPv6 Pain Experiment

[mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)]

Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

> I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed 
> many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way
> forward we have.

A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you.

> But, assuming you're expanding the address space, the simplest 
> solution is to add the additional bits addresses at the end.

Sure.

 > On the other hand, this sure seems similar to what we do today with
 > CGNAT and similar today since there are already 64K endpoints in
 > both TCP and UDP per ./32 of IP....

The following draft makes it more explicit:

	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp-10
	The A+P Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage
	R. Bush, Ed.

	Instead of assigning a single IPv4 address to a
	single customer device, we propose to extend the
	address field by using bits from the port number
	range in the TCP/UDP header as additional end point
	identifiers,

A+P is equivalent to NAT with end to end transparency.

						Masataka Ohta