> On May 31, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > > That is a mathematically accurate statement. > > No. A mathematically correct statement would be that IPv6 can, in From: "Christian Huitema" In the future, we can imagine personal networks containing hundreds of devices, so 1E+17 nodes looks plausible. I cannot really imagine a scenario in which we use 1E+38 addresses.
I appreciate this effort for mathmaticial accuracy, but I think we have lost sight of the originl issue: How many is not an issue in this draft, but the fact that IPv6 < > infinate pool numbers and NAT is not the solution recommended for this reality.