[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- To: "'David Conrad'" <david.conrad@icann.org>, "'Fred Baker'" <fred@cisco.com>
- Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- From: "Gunter Van de Velde \(gvandeve\)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:01:32 +0200
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-4.cisco.com; header.From=gvandeve@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "'Jim Bound'" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>, "'Tony Hain'" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, "'EricLKlein'" <ericlklein@softhome.net>, <gunter@cisco.com>, "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "'Lindqvist Erik Kurt'" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, "'Margaret Wasserman'" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1026; t=1149098497; x=1149962497; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; z=From:=22Gunter=20Van=20de=20Velde=20\(gvandeve\)=22=20<gvandeve@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20Review=20of=20draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3D7VyUJ0dxSoK5+fDUEJPrPEKciFQ=3D; b=HVFYLkCJ8W+11Fns37KtjmsSfzrbjUurRn5QBo2TaDYgBZaW9fkAFkRTuGCAjI7kSUdon801 duxOJ8/f6YLbegCGna/I3rg2MaMF+q8Poafy30oV77ivCfJCH18IcYFJ;
- In-reply-to: <333AA46E-7743-4915-A212-F624647A4234@icann.org>
- Reply-to: <gvandeve@cisco.com>
<slightly off-topic>
Why the difference between objects and addresses in this particular case
for the matematical model? Practically I completely agree, but matemathical
i'm not sure yet? (what if all prefixes are /128?)
G/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of David Conrad
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 6:43 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: Thomas Narten; Jim Bound; Tony Hain; Brian E Carpenter; EricLKlein;
gunter@cisco.com; Ralph Droms; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Lindqvist Erik Kurt;
Margaret Wasserman
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
Fred,
On May 31, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> Yes, we support about 3 * 10^38 addresses in the address space.
> That is a mathematically accurate statement.
No. A mathematically correct statement would be that IPv6 can, in theory,
address up to about 3*10^38 objects. The number of objects that can
actually be supported is, of course, far, far less.
Rgds,
-drc