ipv6

The idea is that rather than implementing protocols one by one, implement all of them with a generic TLS proxy. Why be restrictive? IPv6 is about unlimited freedom, not putting people in a box. If a protocol is complicated like SMTP, drop it from the list. In such a case only implement it if it is important. Otherwise why not? How complicated can it be?

An excellent case here is RTP. When running a SIP or IAX exchange, hundreds or thousands of ports may be required. A typical usage is to assign port numbers 10,000 - 20,000 to this, but their is no standard.

It is annoying and offputting as a customer to have to request special treatment. Some won't bother and will just go elsewhere. And what if a customer wants a non-standard port usage, or is developing something new? Either you have to implement it especially for them or turn them away. What I propose is to give people the freedom to do whatever they want with their ports, the only limitation being that ports not assigned to a TLS encapsulated protocol will not work with the proxy, only on pure IPv6.

You want to market to geeks? Be generic, not bureaucratic. Get this proxy done, permanently, behind you and then forget about the idiots running the rest of the world and go do real stuff, like ucloud. Or ungleich linux. Or a floating datacenter.

There are other examples, such as running multiple sshd instances based on different authentication systems, each on a different port, or different web servers on different ports for different uses, or running a service on a non-standard port to stop script-kiddie attacks spamming the logfiles, or to hide from wrath while an exploit is being fixed. IPv4only isn't going away any time soon unfortunately and forcing people to do everything the 'standard' way with 'standard' tools is an approach that belongs in a shared hosting product, not with real private servers.