Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Brian Carpenter writes: > > > 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. > > Surely you recall the quotation attributed to Thomas J. Watson: "The world > will never need more than five computers." Indeed, although he probably never said it. That's why we didn't pick 64 bits for the IPv6 address. Brian
- 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
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not? Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why no... Anthony Atkielski
