Waste will kill ipv6 too
mel at beckman.org
Thu Dec 28 19:47:17 CST 2017
the difference between thinking in terms of 128
bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions
I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all for 2^128 addresses mitigating the problem. Everyone has been discussing structured assignments with 128 bits, and several people here have proven to a mathematical certainty that no technology here today nor on the horizon can exhaust this address space undertake the current allocation rules, *INCLUDING* using /64s for point-to-point circuit.
On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:34 AM, "bzs at theworld.com<mailto:bzs at theworld.com>" <bzs at theworld.com<mailto:bzs at theworld.com>> wrote:
On December 28, 2017 at 19:23 mel at beckman.org<mailto:mel at beckman.org> (Mel Beckman) wrote:
IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you understand that background.
By "IPng" I only meant whatever would follow IPv4, IP next generation,
not any specific proposal which may've called itself "ipng".
But more importantly the difference between thinking in terms of 128
bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these
Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com<mailto:bzs at theworld.com> | http://www.TheWorld.com<http://www.theworld.com>
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
More information about the NANOG