ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[4]: national security

2003-11-28 08:54:34
See RFC 1715, November 1994, and the endless discussions that appeared
on a variety of mailing list about IPv6 addresses.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   
Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:47:41 +0100
From: Anthony G. Atkielski <anthony(_at_)atkielski(_dot_)com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re[4]: national security

Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:

I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about.

There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address
field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or
perhaps not diminished at all).  However, in reality, dividing the field
in this way may reduce the address space by a factor of as much as
nineteen orders of magnitude.  Again and again, engineers make this
mistake, and render large parts of an address space unusable through
careless, bit-wise allocation of addresses in advance.

...



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>