On Fri Mar 31 06:17:01 2006, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
It depends. People with an emotional attachment to a specific
notion
will never been convinced otherwise, but people who simply don't
understand something may change their mind once they understand.
I do understand your argument, and
On 31-mrt-2006, at 6:11, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
You're absolutely right about the /3 business -- this was a very
deliberate design decision. So, by the way, was the decision to use
128-bit, fixed-length addresses -- we really did think about this
stuff, way back when.
I reviewed some old
Dave Cridland writes:
I do understand your argument, and you're correct in all its
assertions, but not the conclusion. I suspect that's the case for
everyone at this point.
Not as long as I still see people claiming that 128 bits will provided
2^128 addresses _and_ that it can still be
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
And in reaction to other posts: there is no need to make the maximum
address length unlimited, just as long as it's pretty big, such as
~256 bits.
But there isn't much reason to not make it unlimited, as the overhead
is very small, and specific implementations
Immediately blowing 2^125 addresses is absurd.
We want to network the world inside and around us
and then automate it. IPv6 is timely and suits well
both purposes.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dave Cridland writes:
I do understand your argument, and
On 30-mrt-2006, at 6:26, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
We currently have 1/8th of the IPv6 address space set aside for
global unicast purposes ...
Do you know how many addresses that is? One eighth of 128 bits is a
125-bit address space, or
42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,432
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The thing that is good about IPv6 is that once you get yourself a /
64, you can subdivide it yourself and still have four billion times
the IPv4 address space. (But you'd be giving up the autoconfiguration
Steve Silverman writes:
The problem with allocating numbers sequentially is the impact on
routers and routing protocols.
The problem with not doing so is that a 128-bit address doesn't
provide anything even remotely close to 2^128 addresses.
You have to choose what you want.
I have heard
Thus spake Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
However, since that time I've learned to appreciate
stateless autoconfiguration and the potential usefulness of having
the lower 64 bits of the IPv6 address as a place to carry some
limited security information (see
Thus spake Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
So how big would you like addresses to be, then?
It's not how big they are, it's how they are allocated. And they are
allocated very poorly, even recklessly, which is why they run out so
quickly. It's true that
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:43:14 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why 85% of the address space is reserved. The /3 we are using (and
even then only a tiny fraction thereof) will last a long, long time even
with the most pessimistic projections. If it turns out we're
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:36:30AM +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
More bogus math. Every time someone tries to compute capacity, he
looks at the address space in terms of powers of two. Every time
someone tries to allocate address space, he looks as the address space
in terms of a string
Stephen Sprunk writes:
An IPv4/6 address is both a routing locator and an interface identifier.
And so engineers should stop saying that n bits of addressing provides
2^n addresses, because that is never true if any information is
encoded into the address. In fact, as soon as any information
Theodore Ts'o writes:
You've been making the same point over and over (and over)
again.
To some, perhaps. I'm not so sure that it has yet been made even once
to others.
It's probably the case that people who will be convinced by your
arguments, will have accepted the force of your
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
So how big would you like addresses to be, then?
It's not how big they are, it's how they are allocated. And they are
allocated very poorly, even recklessly, which is why they run out so
quickly. It's true that engineers always underestimate required
capacity, but
15 matches
Mail list logo
