----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@gmail.com>
> The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty > revealing and worth thinking about independently. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266 Thanks; the source where I got the other link mentioned that, and I meant to include it... > I was inspired to try a couple traceroutes. It used to be 240 escaped > my prior comcast router and wandered around a while; it does not do > that anymore. I would be dryly amused if that box was actually running > my old OpenWrt bcp38 stuff which blocked 240 for a couple years. My > cloud works, my aws stack works, openwrt works. Damn; I haven't touched the bcp38 wiki in some time. Thanks for the reminder. > Peering into a murky crystal ball, say, 5 years in the future: > > Another thing that I worry about is port space exhaustion, which is > increasingly a thing on firewalls and CGNs. If I can distract you - in > this blog cloudflare attempted to cut the number of ipv4 addresses > they use from 2 to 1, after observing some major retry issues. With a > nice patch, reducing the problem. > > https://blog.cloudflare.com/linux-transport-protocol-port-selection-performance/ Interesting. Isn't that something CGNAT implementers would have had to deal with already? > Peering further into the soi-distant decades ahead, perhaps we should > just allocate all the remaining protocol space in the IP header to a > quic native protocol, and start retiring the old ones. Well, I've been able to avoid thinking about it for some time, but ISTR my reaction to QUIC as violating a number of organized religions' blasphemy rules... > /me hides Indeed. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
