[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- To: "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "'Bound, Jim'" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
- From: "Gunter Van de Velde \(gvandeve\)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:41:40 +0200
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=gvandeve@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: "'Fred Baker'" <fred@cisco.com>, "'Tony Hain'" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>, "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, "'EricLKlein'" <ericlklein@softhome.net>, <gunter@cisco.com>, "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "'Lindqvist Erik Kurt'" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, "'Margaret Wasserman'" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1088; t=1149090108; x=1149954108; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1001; h=From:Subject; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; z=From:=22Gunter=20Van=20de=20Velde=20\(gvandeve\)=22=20<gvandeve@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20Review=20of=20draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DbToJoWaJn4Nm/TWFgzef9mZvC58=3D; b=I80hAhWl97CdCX6B9TdakohK/jvQTVy8v3ZsneWXYmEqt1IH0dJ9668LMFzWOd6iEAYCWzPM 1i7CIHuas9iGf4HaxNA9s6w72dYomXqjGYYI33qZuWDIv2P9BWP1Ehi/;
- In-reply-to: <200605311408.k4VE8DHn003842@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: <gvandeve@cisco.com>
Hi Thomas,
They do not believe that was fair... That is an edit mistake of me as there
was a
comment about that in the archives.
G/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:08 PM
To: Bound, Jim
Cc: Fred Baker; Tony Hain; Brian E Carpenter; EricLKlein; gunter@cisco.com;
Ralph Droms; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Lindqvist Erik Kurt; Margaret Wasserman
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
Oh, and one more peeve.
Does the WG really believe this statement is a fair representation of
reality:
> 4.6. Global Address Pool Conservation
>
> IPv6 provides sufficient space to completely avoid the need for
> overlapping address space,
> 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (3.4*10^38) total
> possible addresses.
That is, given /48s to end sites, stateless address autoconfiguration and
64-bit interface identifiers, do we undermine our own credibility by
claiming IPv6 supports 10^38 addresses?
Thomas