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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Wed Feb 2 16:45:16 CET 2011
> 2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh? Let's be realistic and look at the number of ISPs/customers/users instead of the full 128 bits: 536.870.912 ISPs with each enough space for 16.777.216 customers with 256 networks each, or 65.536 customers with 65.536 networks each... ... Yes ... That should be enough for everybody :) Sander PS: I think the problem here will be to fit those 536.870.912 ISPs in the routing table...
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]