Re: IPv6 adoption
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Sean Reifschneider" <email@example.com>
Cc: "LOSURS Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Debian
Developers' Mailing List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 10:37 PM
Subject: 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 ?
Oh god, that must be right. IETF must be dominated by EE people, the average
CS guy wouldn't mind having a variable number of bits for the address :)
> Dynamic-sized addresses would twice requirements for routers CPU,
> and they don't align well.
Why not? the router's CPU wouldn't have much trouble decoding the address
the quite capable CPUs now... And if you want high capacity, go for parallel
stuff, that's why we're trying to push more parallel prog. stuff. :) IMHO,
the hardware level is not always the brightest way to approach a problem.
I mean, EE people thought they could solve the speech recognition problem
bunch of NN chips or some FFTs followed by a naive stochastics model... But
are they now? He he...