The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...

Fri Aug 27 16:36:56 UTC 1999

Yes, but (unfortunately) the success of the failure of this approach 
depends more from the client's software (and can be successfull if this 
can be hidden by the TCP/IP stack and prevent re-writing the client's 
software) and less from the RFC itself. Through I meant something like 
virtual host defined as _IP address, port shift_ pair.

Anyway, no one approach is used widely now.

Alex.

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:10:50 -0500
> From: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk at cisco.com>
> To: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex at Relcom.EU.net>
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...
> 
> Are you referring to RFC 2052?
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723
> Network Consulting Engineer
> Cisco NSA   Dallas, Texas, USA
> e-mail:ssprunk at cisco.com
> Pager: +1 800 365-4578
> Empowering the Internet Generation
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alex P. Rudnev
> To: Forrest W. Christian
> Cc: Craig A. Haney ; Jon Green ; J.D. Falk ; nanog at merit.edu
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 5:05
> Subject: Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> JUst as I'v wrote yesterday - if you allow to assign WWW addresses (or
> exactly, SERVICE addresses) to the _IP:PORT_ instead of _IP_ (and ask
> _give the port from your local _service_ table_, you'll be free in usage
> the same IP address even for the incoming services, not for the clients
> only (as todays).
> 
> 
> Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
> (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41,
> N 13729 (pager)
> (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
> 
> 

Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)