[128292] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jul 29 23:56:11 2010
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:45:03 EDT."
<AANLkTi=h0CX4sV2XcjzhCcj8HE-y0ih495Q0CUznQdTn@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:55:30 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1280462130_4712P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:45:03 EDT, Atticus said:
> What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
> numeric range. As for "only needing port 80", I'm not really sure where
> you've been for the last decade or so.
I hate to say this, but all of you who are actually thinking about stealing
bits from IPv4 headers when IPv6 is already here: Look who started the "ONE bit
or TWO bits" thread. YHBT. HAND. ;)
--==_Exmh_1280462130_4712P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMUk0ycC3lWbTT17ARAh6eAKCDmCK6thp3qTR+XKpzWqNDbA7pDQCfZYAc
RR4BPpDBw3Eusj26/+CRMGA=
=4GtJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1280462130_4712P--
