Re[4]: national security

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re[4]: national security
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:15 +0100
In-reply-to: <200311281628.hASGSI02001245@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Sender: owner-ietf@xxxxxxxx

Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx 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

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Fedora Users]