RE: NAT444 or ?

[Leigh Porter <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]
> Sent: 07 September 2011 23:14
> To: Dorn Hetzel
> Cc: Leigh Porter; NANOG
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> 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?


Nobody uses the TOS bits, do they? ;-)

--
Leigh




______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________