This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Tue May 9 12:13:59 CEST 2006
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 10:55 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: > The fact that there are many more bits to allocate. The actual number of bits is largely irrelevant to what we're talking about here. The real determinant of the problem is the number of discrete allocations and assignments announced, and this will be a function of the number of discrete networks required to service the globe. This will increase as connectivity increases, but it will ultimately plateau at some stage, or at least it will reach a stage where growth (i.e. rate of increase) will drop significantly. And as I said already, because of the allocation policies in place, ipv6 table growth will always trail the equivalent network prefix requirement for ipv4. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]