[144293] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Sep 7 18:14:05 2011
To: Dorn Hetzel <dorn@hetzel.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:13:26 EDT."
<CAFrZoh15T=QQU24fhNbAGjXKp0RJ1EStv3Js8dNF_SL54CR+YQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:11:57 -0400
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1315433517_8200P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:13:26 EDT, Dorn Hetzel said:
> Perhaps it can be made ever so slightly less ugly if endpoints get an
> "address" that consists of a 32 bit IP address + (n) upper bits of port
> number.
>
> This might be 4 significant bits to share an IP 16 ways, or 8 significant
> bits to share it 256 ways, or whatever.
And you store the 4 or 8 bits in what part of the IPv4 header, exactly?
--==_Exmh_1315433517_8200P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOZ+wtcC3lWbTT17ARAlRrAKD082xtz3JB8W0vE1LfHiJUe+DHFwCfTHP5
ecYD8jXgWa2Bbw5lXQVxtys=
=Ovmo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1315433517_8200P--
