[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
peter h
peter at hk.ipsec.se
Wed Feb 2 18:59:09 CET 2011
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 16.23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > 2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh? If it was so. But in real life it more like 2^48 due to waste at both ends ( 64 bits off at lower end , used as "host identifier", 16 bits used to separate which registrar, typoe of address etc ) -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]