Re[4]: national security

To: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re[4]: national security
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony at atkielski.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:15 +0100
In-reply-to: <200311281628.hASGSI02001245@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <C01FC9FDD15AF849BD9C7C26A91AF6AB12C408@w2k.w2kbraintec.braintec-consult.de> <000001c3b329$25c78690$b520a8c0@w2kbraintec.braintecconsult.de> <6.0.0.22.2.20031127212644.049baec0@mail.utel.net> <B63B3E7B-2190-11D8-9404-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <135-1998496436.20031128130419@atkielski.com> <3FC74D8F.1080704@piuha.net> <48-1992023909.20031128145211@atkielski.com> <200311281628.hASGSI02001245@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu writes:

> Exactly.  And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
> the designers realized that such losses happen ...

Such losses don't just happen.  They are the result of incompetent
engineering.

References:
- AW: IETF58 - Network Facts
  - From: Hans Peter Dittler
- national security
  - From: jfcm
- Re: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re[2]: national security
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: national security
  - From: Jari Arkko
- Re[2]: national security
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: Re[2]: national security
  - From: Valdis . Kletnieks

Prev by Date: Re[5]: national security
Next by Date: Re[4]: national security
Previous by thread: Re: Re[2]: national security
Next by thread: Re[2]: national security
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re[4]: national security

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.