On 2018-08-28 17:24, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> ...Sure, i meant to imply that port-numbers are useful pragmatically,
> but other context identifiers would long term be better.
> Demux-Identifiers at the granualarity of a subscriber or
> application wold be a lot more scalable than flow identifiers.
There are many problems with this issue.
First, the reason that port numbers would be needed is that they are
*currently* how NATs demux, firewalls enforce policy, and routers manage
flows. For each of these, a different identifier could be developed, but
they would not then reduce the need for ALL of these at the IP level at
some boxes. E.g., see draft-touch-tcpm-sno
Ultimately, we have to admit that a device that acts on behalf of a host
IS a host and costs what a host costs.
We can't keep believing there is magic dust that can establish a
solution otherwise.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
