Re[4]: national security

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 ...


Such losses don't just happen.  They are the result of incompetent
engineering.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: national security, (continued) Re: national security, John Kristoff Re: Re[4]: national security, Iljitsch van Beijnum Re[6]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski Re: Re[4]: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks Re[6]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski Re: national security, Jari Arkko Re[2]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski Re: Re[2]: national security, Spencer Dawkins Re[4]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski Re: Re[2]: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks Re[4]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski <= Re[2]: national security, jfcm Re[3]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski Re: Re[3]: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks Re: Re[3]: national security, jfcm Re[3]: national security, jfcm Re: Re[3]: national security, John C Klensin Re: national security, Paul Robinson Re: national security, vinton g. cerf Re: national security, jfcm Re: national security, Dean Anderson

Previous by Date:	Re[5]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski
Next by Date:	Re[4]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski
Previous by Thread:	Re: Re[2]: national security, Valdis . Kletnieks
Next by Thread:	Re[2]: national security, jfcm
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]