On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:17:41 GMT, Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The at current burn rate assumption is far from safe though...
Oh? Have any better-than-handwaving reasons to suspect the current allocation
rate will change drastically? I don't forsee the cellphone or embedded
markets taking
Michel,
The organization has 800 hosts, all behind NAT (they have PA space, NAT
is there for renumbering ease), and there is only a small fraction of
servers that have one-to-one NAT and therefore require a public IP per
host. In your average 800 hosts network (if such a thing exists) it
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address
field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or
perhaps not diminished at all). However, in reality, dividing
+1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w)
Milford, MA 01757 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:47:41 +0100
From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[4
On 28-nov-03, at 14:47, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address
field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or
perhaps not diminished at all).
Ah, I see
Spencer Dawkins writes:
Well, sure. And then you do routing aggregation how?
I was describing the simplest scheme that ensures use of the entire
address space, nothing more.
I also deplore the waste of bits, and would love to hear
alternatives...
I've described alternatives before, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly. And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen ...
Such losses don't just happen. They are the result of incompetent
engineering.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly. And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen, and ruled out 64-bit
addresses because of that effect.
Since those losses are not significantly diminished by doubling the
address length, why bother?
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4 space. And nobody's
proposed any killer app that will take millions of
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:40:53 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
a /48 further deminishes the available bits. The situation is most
notable in the case of a home user, who would get a single IPv4 address
but gets a /48 in IPv6. So we've quadrupled our address space (in bits)
for a 50%
12 matches
Mail list logo
