IPv6 Pain Experiment

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

William Herrin wrote:

>> I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P,
>> which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is
>> better.

> Not a fan of port numbers.

Separation between address and port is vague.

> If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiate
> the link with a name (e.g. dns name),

The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts
can confirm IP address is true by 3 way handshaking.

> negotiate a connection ID and
> continue with the connection ID.

> No ports, no port scanning.

Only to replace well known port numbers by well known connection
IDs and port scanning by connection ID scanning?

 > QUIC comes pretty close to getting it right.

It's another second system syndrome.

Keep using TCP/UDP as is except for port number length.

						Masataka Ohta