Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 10:46:05 EST

  • Next message: Jeff Calvert: "Adobe contact"

    On 14 nov 2008, at 14:55, Fred Baker wrote:

    > Before we get too deeply exercised, let Margaret and I huddle on it.
    > The issue you raised can be trivially solved by adding the checksum
    > offset to a different 16 bits in the address, such as bits 96..127.

    Being checksum-equivalent is important so all protocols that use the
    standard checksum keep working without the NAT66 specifically
    supporting those protocols.

    The trouble is that in one's complement math 0xFFFF is equivalent to
    0x0000 which means that there is loss of information, so accommodating
    the difference in the lower bits means some nasty corner cases are
    possible, while if it's in the subnet bits you just lose one subnet.

  • Next message: Jeff Calvert: "Adobe contact"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD