[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: IPv6 adoption

On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 09:30:52AM -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> How does going with another larger finite amount of addresses resolve
> that?  "We're running low on 32-bit addresses, so let's make the new one
> 64, or wait...  128 bits.  128 bits is enough for everybody."  Why not
> go with dynamic-sized addresses, if you really want to be future-proof?

Am I the only one who think than 128-bit was chosen, because
IETF tought that at time when Internet will be based on IPv6,
most computers will be 128-bit ?

Dynamic-sized addresses would twice requirements for routers CPU,
and they don't align well.

Reply to: