4 ms·
This idea basically proposes to add one bit to the 32 bit addresses, i.e. use 33 bits. The notation is irrelevant, the money quote is > We need to have a mark,
by ktpsns 6y ago
This idea basically proposes to add one bit to the 32 bit addresses, i.e. use 33 bits. The notation is irrelevant, the money quote is
> We need to have a mark, a flag, in the ip packet header
You needed to end this bit also everywhere else -- in routing tables, etc. It is quite obvious that this "minor change" is actually quite a major change, in a world where a 33bit address requires 5 bytes to store, not only 4 bytes.
- tssva 6y agoIt is actually more complicated than that. It proposes the use of one of the reserved IP flag bits to indicated whether the packet includes "IPv4+" addresses and then re-use of the already used DF and MF flag bits to indicated whether the source or destination addresses are "IPv4+" Since these flags are already used for packet fragmentation IPv4+ packets could not be fragmented so it also requires implementing a path mtu discovery protocol for udp since current path mtu discovery using ICMP is broken.