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

Tom Limoncelli tal at whatexit.org
Thu Jul 29 21:31:31 CDT 2010


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.

33 bits nearly as useful as my proposal to extend the live of IPv4 by
simply using the unused addresses.  What "unused addresses" do I speak
of?   Currently the highest IP address is 255.255.255.255.   Well, why
not use the addresses from 256 to 999?  IP addresses could go all the
way to 999.999.999.999 and still be 3-digits per octet.

We wouldn't even have to modify much code.  How many times have you
see a perl script that uses \d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3} as the
regular expression for matching IP addresses?  Tons of code assumes 3
digits per octet.  None of that would have to change.

We can get a few more bits another way.  Why not steal bits from the
port number?  We used to think we needed 64k different ports.
However, now we really only need port 80.  Instant Message tunnels
over port 80, so does nearly every important new protocol.  Why not
just reclaim those bits and use them for addresses?  Instant address
extension!

Tom

:-)       <<<--- indicates humor or sarcasm (in case you weren't sure)

-- 
http://EverythingSysadmin.com  -- my blog
http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my advice




More information about the NANOG mailing list