[144294] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Wed Sep 7 19:07:32 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, Dorn Hetzel
<dorn@hetzel.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:08:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <23589.1315433517@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 23:14
> To: Dorn Hetzel
> Cc: Leigh Porter; NANOG
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>=20
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:13:26 EDT, Dorn Hetzel said:
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> And you store the 4 or 8 bits in what part of the IPv4 header, exactly?
Nobody uses the TOS bits, do they? ;-)
--
Leigh
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
