> Doesn't this leave out a few pieces of data? Given the current IPv6
> address format, which includes a globally unique 64 bit interface ID and 64
> bits of globally unique routing goop. My calculation is that you only have
> 2^64 addresses to work with which leaves roughly 12 bits, maybe 14 to
In message , Timothy Behne writ
es:
>Also, I dont see how you got 25*10^9 * 1000 * 10 = 25*10^9. Should be
>25*10^13. This requires log(25*10^13)/log(2), or 48 bits, to use every
>address. So the original answer (80 bits left over) was correct, an
25, 2000 10:02 AM
To: Steven M. Bellovin; Graham Klyne
Cc: Richard Shockey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many IP addresses?
At 9:41 -0400 4/25/00, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham
>Klyne wri
>tes:
>>At 11:06 PM 4/23/00 -0500, Richard S
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Michael B. Bellopede wrote:
> >wrong idea -- big iron routers don't use "code" to do forwarding, they use
> >silicon, and very fast silicon at that. There are routers in production
> >--Steve Bellovin
>
> Software, firmware, its a matter of semantics. Do yo
At 9:41 -0400 4/25/00, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham
>Klyne wri
>tes:
>>At 11:06 PM 4/23/00 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>>With "always on" IP and IP on anything this is closer to reality than we
>>>might think. In order to permit a reasonable allocation of ad
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mi
chael B. Bellopede" writes:
>
>
>
>> But we have to engineer this in some fashion that
>>permits efficient use of these addresses by hosts and (especially) routers.
>>(An earlier poster wrote that you "just have to write the code". That's
>the
>>wrong idea --
> But we have to engineer this in some fashion that
>permits efficient use of these addresses by hosts and (especially) routers.
>(An earlier poster wrote that you "just have to write the code". That's
the
>wrong idea -- big iron routers don't use "code" to do forwarding, they use
>silicon, a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham Klyne wri
tes:
>At 11:06 PM 4/23/00 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>With "always on" IP and IP on anything this is closer to reality than we
>>might think. In order to permit a reasonable allocation of addresses with
>>room for growth the idea of 25 IP addr
At 11:06 PM 4/23/00 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
>With "always on" IP and IP on anything this is closer to reality than we
>might think. In order to permit a reasonable allocation of addresses with
>room for growth the idea of 25 IP address per household and 10 person
>actually seems conservat