Re: The Mathematical Reality of IP Addressin in IPv4...

["Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>]

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)