Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Does this exist ?


From: Dan Becker <list () bsdnixsolutions com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:10:46 -0500

Quoting Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:14:17 CDT, Dan Becker said:

I have another question. Would moving the TCP stack to base 32 double
traffic ?

We have enough alphanumeric characters to do so. Perhaps a designation
of 1x000 instead of 0x000 to define the difference in base 32 to base
16 respectively.

Umm.. That doesn't actually work.  For instance - in binary, one of the
addresses of this laptop is 128.173.14.107. First, let's look at it
in binary:

1000 0000 1010 1101 0000 1101 0011 1011

Representing that in base 16, you get 80 AD 0E 6B.  Representing it in
base 32 is still going to get you that same exact sequence of 32 bits on
the wire.

You may wish to read RFC791, especially section 3.1, which goes into great
detail about the on-the-wire format of the bits.

http://www.ietf.org/rfcs/rfc791.txt

Thank you for the reply. This is not helping my headache.

There simply has to be a way to represent a larger value than you  
transmit when you transmit.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

      All message scanned for viruses with Clam Antivirus.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


Current thread: