[128099] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Pitcock)
Sat Jul 24 16:17:42 2010
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net>
To: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C4B4408.3040804@kingrst.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:17:47 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
