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
