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

Atticus grobe0ba at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 22:38:56 CDT 2010


What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
numeric range. As for "only needing port 80", I'm not really sure where
you've been for the last decade or so. There's are hundreds of services
using different ports, and tunneling them all makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, we don't really need 65k ports, but stealing bits in the header from
them is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.

List of registered ports: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

<http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>Also take into account public
access *nix servers, with people running their own services on whatever port
they've taken or been assigned. How do you intend to implement a solution
for that? Give public access servers the middle finger and keep on going?

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Tom Limoncelli <tal at whatexit.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Byron Grobe



More information about the NANOG mailing list