Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > You seem to assume that being frugal with address > space would make it possible to use addresess that > are much smaller than 128 bits. I assume that if we are getting by with 2^32 addresses now, we don't need 2^93 times that many any time in the foreseeable future. > This might have been the case if efficiency in address > allocation were the only issue we'd have to deal with. If we continue to throw away address space like this, it will be. That's fully 1/8 of the _entire_ 2^128 addresses. > But more important are routing limitations. We need > to keep the size of the global routing table in check, > which means "wasting" a good deal of address space. Even > in IPv4, where addresses are considered at least somewhat > scarce, a significant part of all possible addresses is lost > because of this. Maybe it's time to find a different way to route.