On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Rakers, Jason wrote: > This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was > given to every human, using a predicted world population of 11 > billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address > space. > > ....that's what they said about never needing more than 640kb of memory in a > computer...... > we'll never need more than that! As soon as some resource becomes available, something is developed that uses as much of that resource as possible - this is a fact of life and is natural progression, it's how we develop new technology. Progression in any area is a Good Thing, I would be worried if we didn't use IPv6 to it's full extent. -- steven
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Geoff Huston
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--wh... Bill Manning
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--wh... Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- RE: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Corzine, Gordie
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... John Kristoff
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Anthony Atkielski
- RE: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Rakers, Jason
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Steven Cotton
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Sean Doran
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Sean Doran
- NAT, v6, etc. Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NAT, v6, etc. Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Sean Doran
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Matt Crawford
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Steven M. Bellovin
