Re: IPv6 adoption
On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 09:30:52AM -0600, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> How does going with another larger finite amount of addresses resolve
> that? "We're running low on 32-bit addresses, so let's make the new one
> 64, or wait... 128 bits. 128 bits is enough for everybody." Why not
> go with dynamic-sized addresses, if you really want to be future-proof?
Am I the only one who think than 128-bit was chosen, because
IETF tought that at time when Internet will be based on IPv6,
most computers will be 128-bit ?
Dynamic-sized addresses would twice requirements for routers CPU,
and they don't align well.
Reply to: