[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT444 or ?
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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110907/174346a2/attachment.bin>
- Follow-Ups:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)
- References:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: dorn at hetzel.org (Dorn Hetzel)