Since the issue is stable end-points, could something like this be a patch
for v4 NATs?
a) Applications running behind NAT are constrained to have only 8-bit
effective port numbers. Means no more than 256 ports.
b) If there are no more than 256 devices hiding behind NAT, NAT could
allocate a stable 8-bit per-device number for each device.
c) Externally visible port number used by an application on some device is
composed of its stable 8-bit number known to NAT, plus 8-bit port number it
locally allocates.
Device & app config is more complex. And the idea of "well known port
numbers" for certain protocols goes for a toss. But at least the apps work.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On
Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:52 PM
To: EKR
Cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu; dts(_at_)senie(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department
forma lly adopts IPv6)
until recently the only way I could get even one
static IP address for my home was through a special deal with a
friend of mine who had a small ISP, and the best bandwidth I could
get was 128kbps. none of the other local providers would sell me
one.
Doesn't the fact that there's not enough demand for this product
to make it available suggest anything to you?
does the fact that there was enough demand for the product that it
eventually became available suggest anything to you?
so if you can't come up with a rational explanation for something,
just pretend that the market is wise and cite it as an unimpeachable
authority.
I do have a rational explanation: the customers don't actually care
at all about your fundamentalist commitment to end-to-end
connectivity.
true, customers don't care about e2e. they do, however, care about
running apps that won't work when e2e is broken.
So, on the one hand, we have the actual behavior of millions of
people.
no, we have your biased interpretation of that behavior, as observed
from a great distance, through a dirty lens.
Keith