Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way forward we have.
A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you.
But, assuming you're expanding the address space, the simplest solution is to add the additional bits addresses at the end.
Sure.
On the other hand, this sure seems similar to what we do today with CGNAT and similar today since there are already 64K endpoints in both TCP and UDP per ./32 of IP....
The following draft makes it more explicit: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp-10 The A+P Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage R. Bush, Ed. Instead of assigning a single IPv4 address to a single customer device, we propose to extend the address field by using bits from the port number range in the TCP/UDP header as additional end point identifiers, A+P is equivalent to NAT with end to end transparency. Masataka Ohta