Hacker News Reader

The idea of multiple IPv4+ hosts with the same IPv4 address doesn't come into it at all. (Questions of proxying in its various forms aren't really relevant.) So, to answer your question: it wouldn't.

View on HN

What does proxying have to do with it? One of us is terribly misunderstanding the concept. As I understand IPv4+ concept in this article, your router gets address 1.2.3.4 then every device behind it gets 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1, etc. That way all the routers in between don't need to be upgraded, they just get the packets to your router and don't care about the extra address bytes, and your router gets them to a particular device. Which is great for routers in the middle, but your web browser still has to use IPv4 and NAT workarounds until all the web servers are upgraded to support IPv4+.

As I understand IPv4+ concept in this article, your router gets address 1.2.3.4 then every device behind it gets 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1, etc.

This is the bit that wasn't in djb's original article AFAIR. My take was that 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1 would be the same machine -- or at least allocated to the same entity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com