Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > > We cope, > > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP / > > access provider networks that won't change. > > Sounds like abstract nonsense.
No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. > > We don't cope because NAT is > > good. Hardly a workday goes past without me thinking "If I could address > > this computer uniquely I'd go home earlier and with less grey hair". > > The reality is that application servers only need globally unique > and stable IP+Ports. > > You can address application servers with them. If, and that is a big IF, they're designed for that. Hint: They're not, and I'm required to deploy technology compatible with older systems and systems outside my control. It would be far easier for me if I could continue with the original assumption -- IP addresses are identifiers. I know you will immediately state that if I change everything else except the IP addressing scheme at 32 bits plus 16 bits of port space (which in and of itself is a change; granted more so in terms of service location), I will be fine. But I only want to change the addressing layer. The rest works fine. And is a bigger mess to alter to your idea. > > We must do better. > > As IPv6 is worse than IPv4 with NAT, feel free to propose a new > network protocol. In your application, that assertion on worseness might be true. In my, where I value the E2E principle higher, no, I think it is not. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668 I used to be a FUNDAMENTALIST, but then I heard about the HIGH RADIATION LEVELS and bought an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
