nanog mailing list archives
Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too)
From: Andrew Kirch <trelane () trelane net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:09:15 -0500
Lets say the worst case scenario is that we exhaust IPv6 at a rate MASSIVELY higher than planned. Can't we all just do this again in like 80 years? I don't get why anyone cares so much that this thread won't die. Speaking of dying, I'll be dead by then anyway. Andrew On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
If anyone wants to TL;DRmoe: 2^128 is effectively infinita larry: we thought 2^32 was effectively infinite curly: we'll never need more than 640k thomas watson: i think there is a world market for maybe five computers
Current thread:
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) valdis . kletnieks (Jan 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) Andrew Kirch (Jan 01)
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) bzs (Jan 02)
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) Owen DeLong (Jan 02)
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) William Herrin (Jan 02)
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) Owen DeLong (Jan 03)
- Re: Threads that never end (was: Waste will kill ipv6 too) bzs (Jan 02)