Re: IPv6 and the "average user"

Mark H. Wood (
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 06:35:34 -0500 (EST)

On 20 Nov 1996, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Followup to: <>
> By author: Pedro Roque <>
> In newsgroup:
> >
> > Which is quite natural as nobody in it's right mind would want to route
> > variable length addresses. Variable length fields should only exist in
> > data to be processed in slow paths. Anyway, 128 bits is more than enought
> > for IPv6. Note that the 32 bits where a good choice for IPv4.

Hey! I disagree. OSI variable-length addresses seem to work okay and
have several useful properties that I don't see elsewhere.

> Quite true, but the IPv6 address space is expected to be exhausted in
> 30 years. The switch from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be painful, but
> that is nothing compared to what switching standard protocol stacks in
> the late 2020's would be like...!

There's one now. :-)

Maybe this thread should move to another list/newsgroup/whatever.

Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer MWOOD@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to reimplement it.