Comment 2^32 and Heirarchical Routing (Score 1) 248
At one point Mr. Terrel writes: "the number of available IP Addresses as being approximately 5.46 * 10^9."
Let's do the math here. How many numbers can be stuffed into 32 bits: 2^32 or 4,294,967,296. (Isn't there more people on the planet than this?)
Wow, that's pretty good: 27% more unique addresses than the pigion-hole principle will allow!
"Put the calculator down."
"Step away from the calculator."
This is where I should have stopped reading, but I continued to see what he was really advocating...
Here's were he finally gets to his point: "a 64 or more Bit Expansion of the current IPv4 Addressing Scheme would more closely approach, and possibly exceed, not only the Number of Hosts, as is the promise of IPv6. But, would retain its overall simplicity, in its implementation and ease of use."
OK, 64-bits is smaller than 128-bits and thus simpler for humans, but he clearly doesn't understand the routing problem that exists in the current network. His scheme (which seems to be to go back to Class-based routing but using 64 bits instead of 32 bits) won't reduce the number of routes being proprogated around: think about the number of Class C, D and E's that he's suggesting and you'll find it makes it worse.
Heirarchical routing will reduce the number of routes being proprogated, but to do heirarchical routing you need to waste space and that's where IPv6's biggest win is: the ability to reduce the number of routes being reported across gateways through truely heirarchical routing.
Could we do heirarchical routing in 64 bits? For the kinds of devices that we have now, we might be able to do so, but what happens if more devices get addresses (like your toaster, TV, phone & lights), then it becomes much harder and we'd have to start allocating things strictly again.
The hard part about IPv6 is the transition, not the number of bits being used. If we need more than 32 and the choice is between 64 or 128, choose 128 so we don't have to do it again in another decade.
Kurt
Let's do the math here. How many numbers can be stuffed into 32 bits: 2^32 or 4,294,967,296. (Isn't there more people on the planet than this?)
Wow, that's pretty good: 27% more unique addresses than the pigion-hole principle will allow!
"Put the calculator down."
"Step away from the calculator."
This is where I should have stopped reading, but I continued to see what he was really advocating...
Here's were he finally gets to his point: "a 64 or more Bit Expansion of the current IPv4 Addressing Scheme would more closely approach, and possibly exceed, not only the Number of Hosts, as is the promise of IPv6. But, would retain its overall simplicity, in its implementation and ease of use."
OK, 64-bits is smaller than 128-bits and thus simpler for humans, but he clearly doesn't understand the routing problem that exists in the current network. His scheme (which seems to be to go back to Class-based routing but using 64 bits instead of 32 bits) won't reduce the number of routes being proprogated around: think about the number of Class C, D and E's that he's suggesting and you'll find it makes it worse.
Heirarchical routing will reduce the number of routes being proprogated, but to do heirarchical routing you need to waste space and that's where IPv6's biggest win is: the ability to reduce the number of routes being reported across gateways through truely heirarchical routing.
Could we do heirarchical routing in 64 bits? For the kinds of devices that we have now, we might be able to do so, but what happens if more devices get addresses (like your toaster, TV, phone & lights), then it becomes much harder and we'd have to start allocating things strictly again.
The hard part about IPv6 is the transition, not the number of bits being used. If we need more than 32 and the choice is between 64 or 128, choose 128 so we don't have to do it again in another decade.
Kurt
