Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 2018-08-28 17:24, Toerless Eckert wrote:

> ...Sure, i meant to imply that port-numbers are useful pragmatically,
> but other context identifiers would long term be better. 
> Demux-Identifiers at the granualarity of a subscriber or 
> application wold be a lot more scalable than flow identifiers.

There are many problems with this issue. 

First, the reason that port numbers would be needed is that they are
*currently* how NATs demux, firewalls enforce policy, and routers manage
flows. For each of these, a different identifier could be developed, but
they would not then reduce the need for ALL of these at the IP level at
some boxes. E.g., see draft-touch-tcpm-sno 

Ultimately, we have to admit that a device that acts on behalf of a host
IS a host and costs what a host costs. 

We can't keep believing there is magic dust that can establish a
solution otherwise. 

Joe