"Salavat R. Magazov" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Corzine, Gordie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?
>
> > "Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> > bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
> > 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.000039 )
>
> Does this mean that every router will have to handle 2^48 routing table
> entries and that this vast amount of information must be sent over the
> internet on every routing table update?
No, of course not. The routes will aggregate exactly like CIDR routes.
In principle at least, we hope to see a default free routing table
of only about 2^13 or 2^14 entries, less than today.
Brian
