>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:53:01 -0700
>To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
>
>At 04:30 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>IPv6 uses an address of 128 bits rather than IPv4's 32 bits. The address
>>is really somewhat shorter because some of the bits are used for various
>>purposes -- like 48 bits of the 128 are most likely the 48 bits of a MAC
>>address of a device.
>>
>>The same concerns about aggregation of addresses prefixes in order to keep
>>routing tables from overflowing or making route update propogation take
>>too long exist in IPv6 just as they do for IPv4.
>>
>>That means that even though v6 gives us lots of new address space, we
>>still need to carefully allocate it in accordance with the physical
>>topology of the net.
>>
>>(Our real problem all along has not been address space, but the amount of
>>routing information needed.)
>>
>> --karl--
>>
>Thanks, Karl. Taking out that 48 leaves 80 (high math, here!), e.g., ten
>8-bit bytes. Assuming one has n = 56 ASCII codes (from my quick count
>of what was printable), taken r = 10 at a time, the permutations are given
>by P =mn!/(n - r)! which my calculator gives 1.292108684106e+17 or about
>1.3e+8 "giganames," calculated as 56*55*54*53*52*51*50*49*48*47.
>You all can check my math. Anyway, I was curious -- that's beaucoup
>names!
>
>Bill Lovell
