> On Dec 19, 2017, at 18:22 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:18:57 +0000, "UpTide ." said: >> If we allocate a /64 like we do single ipv4 addresses now the space gets 2^56 >> (16777216) times larger; but if we start doing something crazy like >> allocating >> a /48 or /56 that number plummets. (256 times larger, and 65536 times larger >> respectfully.) > > You seem to have missed an entire octet's worth of bits, so off by a factor > of 256… > That’s OK… You seem to have your directions reversed...
> A /48 is 16 more bits than a /32, so 65536 times bigger. You mean smaller. > A /56 is 24 more bits than a /32, so 16777216 times bigger. You mean smaller. > And a /64 is 32 bits more than a /32... so.... > > Given that a /33 is just about enough to give everybody in the planet one, > giving away 8 million times that many is going to be a challenge, unless > somebody invents nanotech that wants a separate address for each nanomachine. Not outside the realm of possibility, but they’d need to invent nonotech that resulted in 8+million * 18 quintillion machines per person to really cause a problem. > > But I'd argue that if I have personal nanotech, I *really* want to use ULA > addresses. They're *my* nanotech. :) > Feel free. Personally, I still see ULA as an absurdity. Owen