Re[4]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was national security)

2003-12-03 Thread Anthony G. Atkielski
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: You seem to assume that being frugal with address space would make it possible to use addresess that are much smaller than 128 bits. I assume that if we are getting by with 2^32 addresses now, we don't need 2^93 times that many any time in the foreseeable future.

Re: Re[4]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was national security)

2003-12-03 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:53:57 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Maybe it's time to find a different way to route. If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it, Make sure you do at least some back-of-envelope checks that it Does The Right Thing when a single