8 Oct
2019
8 Oct
'19
8:11 a.m.
On Oct 7, 2019, at 23:59 , Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P, which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is better.
Not a fan of port numbers.
Separation between address and port is vague.
Explain that to ICMP packets.
If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiate the link with a name (e.g. dns name),
The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts can confirm IP address is true by 3 way handshaking.
And UDP? Owen