[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Last call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Last call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:59:33 +0200
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20050825141755.GA12237@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Organization: IBM
References: <4B69BB71-F055-4216-B76A-3B3894EDB58C@cisco.com> <20050825141755.GA12237@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Tim Chown wrote:


   +------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------+
   |  Global Address  |  RFC 1918             |  340,282,366,920,938, |
   |  Pool            |                       |  463,463,374,607,431, |
   |  Conservation    |                       |  768,211,456          |
   |                  |                       |  (3.4*10^38) addresses|
   |                  |  see section 2.6      |  see section 4.6      |

2^128 addresses doesn't help if sites get given too big a prefix ;)


Yes, this is a fairly silly way to state it.

We should perhaps put ULAs, draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations,
and draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary as the references here.

   Brian

References:
- Last call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt
  - From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
- Re: Last call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt
  - From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: "Link Adaptation for IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels" as WG item?
Next by Date: [ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt] Proposed Resolution of Issues [1 - 10]
Previous by thread: Re: Last call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt
Next by thread: Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-03.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread