On December 28, 2017 at 19:23 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
> IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for
> you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you
> understand that background.
By "IPng" I only meant whatever would follow IPv4, IP next generation,
not any specific proposal which may've called itself "ipng".
But more importantly the difference between thinking in terms of 128
bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these
discussions, repeatedly.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
