I have no clue what your point is but an IPv6 /32 is 2^96 IP addresses. The total possible IPv4 address space is 2^32.
So your point doesn't make much sense to me. - Cynthia On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM william manning <[email protected]> wrote: > ok, so you don't like the "use 127.0.0.0/8" proposal. fine. > RFC 1918 space is too small. fine. > IPv6 is too hard. fine. > > Shortly after discussions started on RF 1918, I proposed the following: > > Since NAT exists, direct peering on a global scale will be fairly > restrictive, one should consider inverting RFC 1918. Use those addresses > strictly and only for global interconnection/peering. > > This would free up all other IPv4 space to sit behind your NAT and usable > in your enterprise networks. Thats almost an entire IPv6 /32 of space for > everyone, without having to migrate to IPv6. > > Problem solved. > > Your welcome. > > /Wm > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
