Re: [v6ops] A good "state of the art" overview of IPv6 Transition from FCC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
To: "Tom Taylor" <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 5:02 AM

> Well, when DHCPv6 is getting more popular, we may be able to work around
> this limitation. However, 18 trillion^2 addresses are still a lot^2.

True but not necessarily relevant.

When I first studied IPv6 all those years ago, I was also active in ATM and it
immediately struck me that IPv6 had not left enough room in the interface part
for an ATM address, so that an IPv6 address would always be too small.

Tom Petch

> On 1/3/11 10:56 PM, "Tom Taylor" <tom111.taylor@bell.net> wrote:
> 
> >But isn't it only 18 trillion trillion because everyone is getting at
> >least a /64?
> >
> >On 03/01/2011 10:35 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
> >>
> >>> We can only hope that 340 trillion trillion trillion is enough for a
> >>> while...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amen!
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> v6ops@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops