Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")

Bob Hinden writes:

It was well understood that it was important to keep most of the IPv6
address space open to allow for future use.


Why do we need 42,535,295,865,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
addresses right now, then?

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Keith Moore Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Iljitsch van Beijnum Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Bob Hinden Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski <= Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski Re: Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Iljitsch van Beijnum Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), jfcm Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta Re[4]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski Re: Re[4]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Valdis . Kletnieks Re[6]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Masataka Ohta Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski

Previous by Date:	Re: media type?, Nathaniel Borenstein
Next by Date:	Re[8]: national security, Anthony G. Atkielski
Previous by Thread:	Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Bob Hinden
Next by Thread:	Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security"), Anthony G. Atkielski
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]