[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- To: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:08:13 -0400
- Cc: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.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>
- In-reply-to: Message from "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com> of "Mon, 29 May 2006 09:15:34 EDT." <936A4045C332714F975800409DE09240025BCBBA@tayexc14.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Oh, and one more peeve.
Does the WG really believe this statement is a fair representation of
reality:
> 4.6. Global Address Pool Conservation
>
> IPv6 provides sufficient space to completely avoid the need for
> overlapping address space,
> 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (3.4*10^38) total
> possible addresses.
That is, given /48s to end sites, stateless address autoconfiguration
and 64-bit interface identifiers, do we undermine our own credibility
by claiming IPv6 supports 10^38 addresses?
Thomas