On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:29:32 -0600 Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:41:45 -0500 > Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is there a plausible case where multiple IPv4, IPv6 or a mixture of > > addresses would need to be packed into this single field? I'm just > > wondering if we need to deal with multicast/anycast/foocast or dual > > IPv4/IPv6 layers. > > > > I'm guessing that these cases would be a list or array of the field > > under discussion, but I wanted to ask the naive question. > > I think it's handled fine by the layer above, by having an array of > addresses. Actually, this made me realize, if you do encode multiple addresses in one address structure, you can make this more efficient for larger numbers of a addresses. That is, instead of having one IP address per structure, if you just have multiple addresses in the e.g. IPv4 opaque, you don't need to repeat the "IPv4 address type" int every time. That would almost always save some space, since we'd almost always be dealing with lists of addresses of the same type (or two types). I don't know if it's worth it or anything, but just a thought. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
