[gsich]

If you consider port 80/443 as essential, then you can add 853 to that list. Every network who blocks it, blocks an essential port, similar to blocking 443. This is the angle one needs to work with here. Why keep the status quo for all eternity?

People have difficulties port forwarding. It's fixable, but then again, this is a different issue. You are talking about incoming ports, not outgoing.

[zaarn]

Adding ports to a list of "essential" ports is hard considering some middleboxes haven't been updated since IPv6 standard was published (1998) and those aren't even the oldest once I've seen. They will drop and mangle packets as they please and unless it costs them millions of dollars a month these boxes will not be replaced or reconfigured, period. That is reality on the internet.

[gsich]

But not on customer networks. So what's the problem? Crappy wireless networks are not worth it. Mobile works, corporate can configure it.

I think this has gone full circle now...

[zaarn]

Corporate will not configure anything unless it costs them millions. Same for Mobile (which breaks frequently but thank you very much) and same for wireless networks.

Nobody will update their machines that haven't been updated since the 90s because your protocol needs a new port to be freely accessible. Nobody will thusly adopt it and in turns nobody will update their machines.

The TCP/UDP/ICMP trio has been ossified as the ground protocols of the internet, ports 53/80/443 for traffic and TLSv1.2 for SSL traffic. Almost everything outside these parameters breaks in a variety of networks from "bad performance" to "simply doesn't work", depending on whether you sit on a VPS or a normal landline like business or consumer DSL.

We have to deal with that if we want updated protocols to even remotely have a chance of adoption. As I have repeatedly said, this is the reality of the modern internet, face it or have you protocol forgotten and unused.

[gsich]

>Corporate will not configure anything unless it costs them millions.

Of course they will if it has a purpose. Not everything is driven by money as you suggest. Besides: corporates have internal resolvers anyway.

>Same for Mobile (which breaks frequently but thank you very much)

No. If it does, complain to your ISP. There is no reason why an outgoing port should be blocked.

>and same for wireless networks.

They will update too.

>Nobody will update their machines that haven't been updated since the 90s because your protocol needs a new port to be freely accessible. Nobody will thusly adopt it and in turns nobody will update their machines.

Dangerous assumption. Opening a port does not need an update. It's TCP, the same protocol as http on port 80 or 443.

This is a minority problem. Networks do work.