[e2e] flat (was Re: Port numbers in the network layer?
touch at isi.edu
Mon Apr 29 15:00:22 PDT 2013
The benefit of decoupling the service name from the destination port -
in the current Internet - is an increased number of potential concurrent
(or recently closed) connections.
That's described in the draft I posted earlier. The overhead need apply
only to the first packet of a TCP connection.
On 4/28/2013 12:11 PM, Kevin Mason wrote:
> While interesting, what would be the absolute benefit? The possibilities for confusion by mis-spelling alone would negate most of the gain. Plus switching variable length, essentially random character socket indicators would be a huge overhead.
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 5:01 PM, christian.tschudin at unibas.ch wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Detlef Bosau wrote:
>>> ... port numbers on the transport layer have worked fine for about 35 years now. (Is this correct?) So there must be extremely compelling reasons to restart this discussion.
>> the past not being the reason, the reason must lie in the future,
>> which is: no ports at all, and names instead of port numbers.
>> If at Bob's time ports were chosen to be encoded in ASCIZ instead
>> of a 16 bit integer, many nice conflations would have been possible,
>> architectural IP oddities cleaned up, connectionless web servers
>> at IP level could have emerged and the bang path would still be
>> with us.
>> Some fun addr+"port" examples for such a one-layer IP network:
>> 10.0.0.2:echo?say=look at me look at me I'm on e2e
>> 192.168.1.1:eval(dns?www.google.com)!i_feel_lucky?but I forgot the question
>> Port-less is not really new and links back to Bob: it's an instance
>> of a role based architecture, makes the world look flat again,
>> like SDN.
>> best, christian
>> Prof. Dr. Christian F. Tschudin
>> Uni Basel | Head of Dept of Mathematics and Computer Science
More information about the end2end-interest