[128100] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sat Jul 24 16:23:20 2010
In-Reply-To: <1280002667.12383.2.camel@petrie>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:23:12 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
isn't ipv3.com@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@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. =A0Infact, the 33rd bit would ensure tha=
t
> an IPv4 header had to have 5 byte addresses.
>
> William
>
>
>
>
