nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:45:36 -0400
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:32:35 -0400, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF engineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic we've just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. :)
Actually, it was *64*, but SLAAC's use of MAC would've left only 16 bits. Adding it on meant a 112bit network. Round up and we get 128!
Current thread:
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion, (continued)
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Naslund, Steve (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Tinka (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Karl Auer (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ricky Beam (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Andrews (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mike Hammett (Jul 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mike Hammett (Jul 05)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 05)