Re: IPv6 adoption
Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 01:56:52 -0700 (+0000), Robert Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 12:16:12AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Remember, IPV6 addresses are 128 bits because a number of members of
> > > > the IPv6 working group didn't understand that 64 bits was significantly
> > > > more than twice the number of addresses than 32 bits.
> > >
> > > I'd like to assume they didn't think they were going to multiply the
> > > address space by 4 and really did intend to raise the address space by
> > > several orders of magnitude.
> > >
> > If all the ipv6 addresses were distributed evenly across the planets
> > surface, there would be roughly 423,354,243,695,259,002,656 per square inch.
> > And, no, I don't know what this has to do with anything.
> But due to the routing nature of IPv6, the worst case scenario is more like
> 1024/m^2. Of course, then someone mentions the moon (Mars being too far
Because of routing latencies and TCP connection time-outs? I guess
we'll have to come up with IPv7 that shall support the Solar System.
firstname.lastname@example.org (home phone on request)
RE: xmailtool http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan/xmailtool/index.html
I am the "ILOVEGNU" signature virus. Just copy me to your signature.
This email was infected under the terms of the GNU General Public