Scott Bradner wrote:
I was surprised that TCP-over-IPv6 and UDP-over-IPv6 didn't increase
the port number space. I know it's off-topic here, but anyone know why
they didn't? It surely must have been considered.
That was considered to be part of TCPng, and as best I recall was
explicitly out of scope.
correct
I was looking more for an explanation of how and why it was decided to
be out of scope.
The arguments for considering it to be in scope would have been:
- the TCP and UDP "pseudo-headers" needed to be changed anyway to
accomodate IPv6 addresses (see section 8.1 of RFC 2460);
- the pressure on well-known port numbers was obvious at the time;
- supporting 32-bit port numbers in IPv6 stacks could have been done
at very little incremental cost;
- a larger port space would have been an additional incentive to
adopt IPv6;
- more ambitious changes to TCP would have a low probability of
adoption within a relevant timeframe;
- it makes sense for the port number space to be the same size for
UDP-over-IPv6 and TCP-over-IPv6.
Jeroen Massar wrote:
It would not make much sense, between 2 hosts you can already have
65536*65536 possible connections*, which should be more than
enough(tm) ;)
Not for connections to a well-known port.
--
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf