ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re[4]: national security

2003-11-28 12:28:39
```Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu writes:

```
```Exactly.  And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen, and ruled out 64-bit
```
```
Since those losses are not significantly diminished by doubling the

The problem arises when zones of the address are reserved.  Setting
aside n bits of an m-bit address diminishes the address space by 2^n,
not by (m-n)/m.

```
```I suggest you figure out just how much bigger 2^65 is than the
current 2^32 ...
```
```
33 bits

You're making the same mistake as everyone else:  You calculate the size
of the address space as 2^n, but you believe that reserving m bits
diminishes the address space by only m.

```
 Current Thread Re[4]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski <= Re: Re[4]: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks Re: Re[4]: national security, Tim Chown Re: Re[4]: national security, shogunx Re: Re[4]: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks Re: IPv6 address space lifetime, was: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum Re: IPv6 address space lifetime, was: national security, Loa Andersson Re[2]: IPv6 address space lifetime, was: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski RE: national security, Michel Py RE: Re[4]: national security, Michel Py RE: Re[4]: national security, shogunx