[181894] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Jul 9 03:14:00 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:45:36 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEB56C2D-255E-41E7-8815-E33EF617231E@beckman.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:32:35 -0400, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
> You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF
> engineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic
> we've just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm
> inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. :)
Actually, it was *64*, but SLAAC's use of MAC would've left only 16 bits.
Adding it on meant a 112bit network. Round up and we get 128!
