Seriously, As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs to for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the address assignment. Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map to routing information however we may code it? The memory and processor steps required would be trivial compared to the agony of running out of space again. I'm sure this was argued before. But, it seems to me that the wrong direction has been taken. Gordie Corzine Compaq Global Services (but not speaking for Compaq)
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Corzine, Gordie
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Anthony Atkielski
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--wh... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Salavat R. Magazov
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--wh... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--wh... Matt Crawford
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Fred Baker
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Keith Moore
