nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT444 or ?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:11:57 -0400
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:13:26 EDT, Dorn Hetzel said:
Perhaps it can be made ever so slightly less ugly if endpoints get an "address" that consists of a 32 bit IP address + (n) upper bits of port number. This might be 4 significant bits to share an IP 16 ways, or 8 significant bits to share it 256 ways, or whatever.
And you store the 4 or 8 bits in what part of the IPv4 header, exactly?
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: NAT444 or ?, (continued)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Cameron Byrne (Sep 10)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 11)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Dobbins, Roland (Sep 11)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Cameron Byrne (Sep 11)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Daniel Roesen (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Seth Mos (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Dorn Hetzel (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 08)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Cameron Byrne (Sep 08)
- what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Christian de Larrinaga (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Lyle Giese (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Joel jaeggli (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Lyle Giese (Sep 08)
- CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 09)