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]/
[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 ]
peter h
peter at hk.ipsec.se
Wed Feb 2 18:59:09 CET 2011
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 16.23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh?
If it was so. But in real life it more like 2^48 due to
waste at both ends
( 64 bits off at lower end , used as "host identifier", 16 bits used
to separate which registrar, typoe of address etc )
--
Peter Håkanson
There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
- 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 ]