 ncherryPremium
join:2003-07-13
Monroe Township, NJ | reply to RARPSL
Re: 2^128 Addresses Claim is inaccurate/misleading RARPSL, you are quite correct, I'm moving this quite off-topic. I'll stop here and if you ever want to discuss this privately just use my contact information here or the email address on my web page (top right). I want to thank you for the information it's given me quite a few things to think about. I've already started to make changes to my notes web page and I've got quite a few more to make. 
--
Neil Cherry
Linux Home Automation
Linux HA Blog
Author: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
|
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by ncherry:RARPSL, you are quite correct, I'm moving this quite off-topic. I'll stop here and if you ever want to discuss this privately just use my contact information here or the email address on my web page (top right). I want to thank you for the information it's given me quite a few things to think about. I've already started to make changes to my notes web page and I've got quite a few more to make. No problem about getting off topic. I do not see it as such. I made the statement that the correct number to compare to 2^32 was 2^64 NOT 2^128 and needed to explain/defend my comment.
I can recommend the O'Reilly book for IPv6 information.
Once I get home and have time to look at and review your page, I might contimue our discussion. |
|
ncherryPremium
join:2003-07-13
Monroe Township, NJ | said by RARPSL:No problem about getting off topic. I do not see it as such. I made the statement that the correct number to compare to 2^32 was 2^64 NOT 2^128 and needed to explain/defend my comment. I can recommend the O'Reilly book for IPv6 information. Ah, I'm kind of glad you didn't say it that way to begin with. It would have been a shorter conversation.
I have the book around here somewhere but I can't find it (just graduated with a BS, now working on an MS).
Had an interesting discussion at work with one of the engineers (he's signing up for the trial too) and we came to the conclusion that if left up to the end user they'll only use 1 subnet.
--
Neil Cherry
Linux Home Automation
Linux HA Blog
Author: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
|
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by ncherry:Had an interesting discussion at work with one of the engineers (he's signing up for the trial too) and we came to the conclusion that if left up to the end user they'll only use 1 subnet. I tend to agree so long as you say AVERAGE user. Most do not even have a router so the number of subnets is not an issue for them (they use the supplied IPv4/32 single address as is). Those who do have a router will not have enough devices to need a second subnet. I have seen people with both Wired and Wireless LANs who separate the two into different subnetworks for control purposes. As I said, the ISP giving out /56s (in lieu of a /48) will allow them to get 4096 times the number of prefixes to assign to their customers while still allowing the customer to have the same number of subnetworks that the current IPv4/32 + Class-C LAN NATing provides.
Given the size of the block the ISP is being given, this 4096 fold increase in prefixes should be a large enough supply of prefixes. |
|
ncherryPremium
join:2003-07-13
Monroe Township, NJ | Yes, forgive me I definitely meant to say average user. Fortunately the engineer I was talking to is an above average Lab-ie. |
|
