On Mar 7, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
This has been thought of before, discussed and rejected.
But has this: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-terrell-math-quant-ternary-logic-of-binary-sy... ? Please read and explain *exactly* why it doesn't work... W
In message <1299498200.29652.40.camel@kotti.kotovnik.com>, Vadim Antonov writes :
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear me right.
And, no, it does not require any changes any in the global routing infrastructure - as implemented now, and most OS kernels (those which aren't broken-as-designed, grin) would do the trick just fine. None of that dual-stack stupidity, and, of course, no chicken-and-egg problem if the servers and gateways can be made to respect really old and well-established standards.
DNS and most applications would need some (fairly trivial) updating, though, to work properly with the extended addressing; and sysadmins would need to do tweaks in their configs since some mythology-driven "security" can get in the way. But they don't have to do that en mass and all at once.
The most obvious solution to the non-problem of address space shortage is the hardest to notice, ain't it?
--vadim
P.S. Hfr YFEE gb ebhgr orgjrra cevingr nqqerff fcnprf bire choyvpnyyl ebhgrq fcnpr, Yhxr. Guvax bs cevingr nqqerff ovgf nf n evtug-fvqr rkgrafvba gb gur sbhe-bpgrg choyvp nqqerff.
P.P.S. Gb rkgraq shegure, nygreangr gjb qvfgvapg cevingr nqqerff fcnprf, nf znal gvzrf nf lbh pna svg vagb gur urnqre.
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
W PS: :-) <doh! ROT13 fails to be interesting on punctuation.... >