Noel Chiappa wrote:
I persist in thinking that those 32-bit names are continuing their evolution
into local-scope names, with translation at naming region boundaries. How can
we improve that - reduce the brittleness of the middleboxes you refer to, by
making their data more visible (and thus replicable, etc)?
Just say, A+P, except that the original proposal of A+P has
wrongly assumed that a NAT box is required inside a site.
Still, surely, port numbers are local-scope names.
However, if the 16bit port numbers are combined with 32bit IP
addresses, they are the globally scoped names with 48 bit
length, which is a lot more than enough to make the Internet
fully end to end transparent even at the current global scale.
but I think in retrospect that's a non-starter - changing TCP
(which is what that would require) is not really an option (see point 1).
Changing TCP is required not for address space extension but
for better handling of multiple addresses for better routing
table aggregation.
Masataka Ohta