Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> The problem can be solved by carefully designing connection
>> establishment protocols to support multiple addresses of a
>> host, which means no solution exists at the connectionless
>> layer of IP.
>> Modified TCP, which send multiple SYN to several addresses
>> of a peer helps a lot to reduce timeout.
> I am pretty sure we can fix the problem if we are prepared to adapt
> the stack somewhat.
FYI, modified socket API and TCP with multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6
(optionally with ID/locator separation) addresses was designed
and implemented several years ago.
It's not very hard unless you desperately try to solve the problem
at the connectionless IP layer.
But, I see no point to insist on IPv6 with a lot of wrong design
choices.
> The alternative is to do nothing and let various people hack the stack
> up completely with meat axes and then we will be working round the
> consequences for decades.
The alternative is to live with IPv4 with port restriction, which
is a lot more realistic because we can continue to use the
current backbone.
> But really, the challenge is that carrier grade NAT works just fine
> for the ISPs who have the decision making power here.
While legacy NAT is a form of port restricted IP, lack of end to
end transparency is still a problem.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
