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.
...