My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc. -- Hugo h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber also on TextSecure & RedPhone
---- From: Damian Menscher <dam...@google.com> -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45 ---- > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: > >> On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG < >> nanog@nanog.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote: >>>> > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the >>>> rest >>>> > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i >>>> guess >>>> > we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons >>>> > learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet). >>>> >>>> Would be really interesting to know how you would propose >>>> squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we >>>> could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has >>>> available to save having to move to this new incompatible format. >>>> >>> >>> I solved that problem a few years ago (well, kinda -- only for backend >>> logging, not for routing): >>> >>> http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/net/InetAddresses.html#getCoercedIPv4Address(java.net.InetAddress) >>> >> >> Squeezing 32 bits into 128 bits is easy. Let me know how you do with >> squeezing 128 bits into 32 bits... >> > > I did just fine, thanks. (You may want to read the link again.... ;) > > Damian
signature.asc
Description: PGP/MIME digital signature