33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?

Sat Jul 24 20:23:12 UTC 2010

isn't ipv3.com at gmail.com jim fleming?

<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg04279.html>
(for reference)

pls to not be replying to the list when ipv3.com posts to nanog..

-Chris

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
<nenolod at systeminplace.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
>> I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
>> wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
>> between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
>
> 33-bit is a fucking retarded choice for any addressing scheme as it's
> neither byte nor nibble-aligned.  Infact, the 33rd bit would ensure that
> an IPv4 header had to have 5 byte addresses.
>
> William
>
>
>
>