See RFC 1715, November 1994, and the endless discussions that appeared on a variety of mailing list about IPv6 addresses. Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@xxxxxxxxxxxx On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:47:41 +0100 > From: Anthony G. Atkielski <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re[4]: national security > > Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > > > I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about. > > There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address > field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or > perhaps not diminished at all). However, in reality, dividing the field > in this way may reduce the address space by a factor of as much as > nineteen orders of magnitude. Again and again, engineers make this > mistake, and render large parts of an address space unusable through > careless, bit-wise allocation of addresses in advance. > > ...