On Oct 8, 2019, at 02:29 , Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Separation between address and port is vague. Explain that to ICMP packets.
Why do you think ICMP any different?
Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in ICMPv4 error packets contain port numbers just after IP headers.
Show me the port number in a type 8 or type 0 packet.
Moreover, unlike stupid ICMPv6, ICMPv4 error packets are guaranteed to contain 8B of inner packet payload (enough for 32 bit port number) after IP header.
You’re selecting a very limited subset of ICMP that happens to contain a portion of a packet that happens to contain a port number (or two).
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?
Applications over UDP may or may not confirm by 3 way handshaking or some other mechanism.
That's UDP.
Yes, but the context in which you proposed this as a be-all end-all solution doesn’t allow for the existing things that brea when you make the assumptions you’ve obviously made.
That's very elementary explanations on ICMP and UDP.
Yes, thanks for yet another condescending comment proving that you completely missed the point of my post. It’s always a pleasure. Owen