Want to run another webserver instance or whatever on your computer? Get the OS to allocate a new IP for it. Ports be damned.
Could be implemented in a backwards compatible way by requiring all IPv6 TCP/UDP traffic to use a fixed port number.
Yes, that's why I said I know it was mixing of layers.
However ports are a layer violation in a strict sense, introduced as a workaround because there was no easy way to just add thousands of new IPs to a single host back in the IPv4 days. No need to continue a workaround that causes grief on a daily basis.
This is why I consider ports a layer violation of sorts. You never talk to a machine with TCP/UDP, you talk to a service on a machine. And so as it is the full address to the service isn't just the layer 3 address.
As I mentioned this would be especially interesting when hosting multiple services, same or different, on the same machine since there would be no port conflict.
As I said you could implement it by having TCP/UDP as is, just with a fixed port number. This wouldn't be unlike the myriad of other conventions that litter IPv6, such as using /64 for a host or ULA's having a certain prefix.
Got it, makes sense. It just seems more like an architectural decision to me than something related to the network stack - that's why I got confused. You can come up with your own convention and use it within a local network. One of the downsides of this approach - it will clutter up the routing table, but that’s probably not a big deal.
I usually prefer to use some kind of demultiplexer, like a reverse proxy, to handle the conversions.
Still, I do have to wonder about a port-free world. Seems a lot of things would get simpler.
Something involving socat, an any-IP / TCP routing rule, a VPS or other machine with a ipv6 /64 and plenty of duct-tape.
You'd get an application sitting on port 80 accessible via some unique ipv6 address (in the /64) on a tcp port 80. They needn't be the same port number but it would make it easier.