nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 daydreams
From: Kevin Loch <kloch () hotnic net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:29:24 -0400
Mark Smith wrote:
We didn't get 48 bits because we needed them (although convenience is a need, if it wasn't we'd still be hand winding our car engines to start them ). We got them because it made doing other things much easier, such as (near) guarantees of world wide unique NIC addresses, allowing "plug-and-play", at least a decade before the term was invented.
This is not a scientific opinion but I think you can pick a random host id from 32 bit space on most lans without having to retry very often. - Kevin
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 daydreams, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams bmanning (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Randy Bush (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Suresh Ramasubramanian (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Jeroen Massar (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Peter Dambier (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Paul G (Oct 17)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Peter Dambier (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Mark Smith (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Randy Bush (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Mark Smith (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Kevin Loch (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams David Barak (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Jeroen Massar (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams Paul Jakma (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 daydreams David Barak (Oct 19)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)