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@cisco.com> To: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@Relcom.EU.net> Cc: nanog@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@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@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)