[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Kevin Loch
kloch at kl.net
Tue May 29 11:04:32 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Bicknell wrote: > - IPv6 space is not infinite. It's a 64-72 bit address space. That's > right, subnets with > 256 hosts are very uncommon today, so we've wasted > 64 bits to number 256 things. That makes the space effectively on the > long end 72 bits. Excellent point. I never understood why they didn't just use say 16 bits for the host portion, randomly assign an address and check for collisions before use. > I predict with the current allocation procedures IPv6 will be > "used up" in my lifetime. I also predict the groups today getting > /32's (and larger) will look like the legacy class A holders in > 20 years time. When your doorknob automatically requests a ULA-C > /64 when you bring it home, and your house has 2,000 of them as every > individual system talks to each other we'll be looking at this quite > differently. Why can't your doorknob select a ULA-L /64 and check for collisions before use? - Kevin
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list