[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
- Subject: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
- From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:23:12 -0400
- In-reply-to: <1280002667.12383.2.camel@petrie>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <1280002667.12383.2.camel@petrie>
isn't ipv3.com at gmail.com jim fleming?
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg04279.html>
(for reference)
pls to not be replying to the list when ipv3.com posts to nanog..
-Chris
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
<nenolod at systeminplace.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
>> I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
>> wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
>> between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
>
> 33-bit is a fucking retarded choice for any addressing scheme as it's
> neither byte nor nibble-aligned. ?Infact, the 33rd bit would ensure that
> an IPv4 header had to have 5 byte addresses.
>
> William
>
>
>
>