Re: Re[4]: national security

To: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: national security
From: Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:17:41 +0000
In-reply-to: <200311282015.hASKF402006123@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <13-1973169458.20031128200626@atkielski.com> <200311282015.hASKF402006123@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony at atkielski.com>  said:
> 
> > 33 bits
> 
> 8,589,934,592 times as many addresses.  At current burn rates, it will take
> us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4 space.  And nobody's
> proposed any killer app that will take millions of times more address
> space.

The "at current burn rate" assumption is far from safe though...

Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re[4]: national security
  - From: Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Re[4]: national security
  - From: shogunx

References:
- Re[4]: national security
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: Re[4]: national security
  - From: Valdis . Kletnieks

Prev by Date: Re: national security
Next by Date: Re: Re[4]: national security
Previous by thread: Re: Re[4]: national security
Next by thread: Re: Re[4]: 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: Re[4]: national security

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