Peace, On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 12:24 AM Tom Herbert <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There's also QUIC where a NAT may evict a UDP 4-tuple state and later > instantiate a new tuple for the QUIC connection with different port > numbers. Just so that we're all on the same page, we're talking of IPv6 where NAT is considered an enormously unprofessional practice. This is what the entire protocol was designed for: to eliminate the necessity of NAT where it's not really supposed to happen. > In reality, it's not that flow label modulation or NAT break anycast, > it's that anycast is inherently broken since it makes assumptions that > are true only most of the time. The anycast isn't broken, it's fundamental to the Internet due to the architecture of the latter. Broken are the protocol and the application designs which rely on a transport flow being stable and uninterrupted over the course of time. This is just not how the Internet works, and it never did work this way, and it never would. -- Tòma
