[128307] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Palmer)
Fri Jul 30 05:09:00 2010
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:05:06 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5GLiTkeVvnh=DmOOT220Mv2uxqBa-MUVEvGom@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:38:56PM -0400, Atticus wrote:
> 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. There's are hundreds of services
> using different ports, and tunneling them all makes absolutely no sense.
> Yes, we don't really need 65k ports, but stealing bits in the header from
> them is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.
Fark, Tom, he's gone straight past the hook, line, and sinker, and taken it
all the way up to the second line guide. Better get the big pliers.
- Matt
