On 21/6/23 09:49, imn...@gmail.com wrote:
I did some math a while back. IPv6 will 'never' run out of addresses? Hah!
It'll happen sooner than anyone thinks.
- Assume 2^31 IPv6 LANs attached to the internet around the world.
And what's stopping more than 2^31 LANs being attached? Why did y
Neal:
You aren’t the only one who thought the math was off with IPv6.
I had my issues, but for different reasons.
Interesting read.
R
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 7:17 PM, imn...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I did some math a while back. IPv6 will 'never' run out of addresses? Hah!
I did some math a while back. IPv6 will 'never' run out of addresses? Hah!
It'll happen sooner than anyone thinks.
- Assume 2^31 IPv6 LANs attached to the internet around the world.
- Compute 2^31 * 2^64 = 2^95 addresses assigned
- Assume 16 devices connected on each LAN: 2^31 * 2^4 = 2^35
Yeah, some of the RFCs on v6 address formats hem and haw about how big the
network ID and interface ID parts are (probably written before actual
implementations were in place), but
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.5.1 says quite
unequivocally:
For all unicast addresses, except t
I think that is required by SLAAC RFC, which adds another 2 bytes to 6
bytes of hardware ethernet address.
Which is in total 8 bytes, therefore 64 bits is required for it. Prefix
cannot be higher, but can be lower in theory. There might be some
implementation details now supporting lower prefi
This situation should be supported and working. But if those hosts do
not use DHCP to "activate" those names, you have to use different option
for them. Use --host-record instead, like:
dhcp-host=192.168.10.203,mediapi
host-record=proxy,192.168.10.61
I think dhcp-host does not care for the ord
