Sebastian Freundt wrote:
Valid reasons? Sure: In Germany every network operator has to maintain a database of*all* connections from within this networks to the outside for 6 months, let me take your numbers from below: For a new outbound connection, I have the freedom to use the current epoch time (as in the original definition) makes up 32 bits, then the process id, 48 bits, then I have 16 bits to spare. Assume I just enumerate my connection, the first connection is 1, the second 2, and so on.
Many people and businesses currently use NAT to share a single IP address by more than one computer. The ISP only sees what is connected to them, and not what's behind the NAT. How does this differ from monitoring everything that passes through an IPv6 router?
Another would be if they happen to be on a fragile end of the BGP tree and have to change their routes frequently, STP propagation might be fast, but to propagate a changed route if there's millions of entries in the arp table could take a while.
Routing tables are based on network, not individual host addresses. This means that the number of computers or addresses you use is irrelevant, so long as they all belong to your network or subnet.
So? What are you implying here? That all routers on the internet magically had a RAM update and now can hold billions of addresses? It's good to have plenty of space left for the future, but it's not wise to go and waste that space immediately, or calling setups that won't cope with what you imagine broken or wrong?
One of the advantages of IPv6 is that it reduces the size of routing tables. The tables contain only network addresses and are done in a hierarchical manner, so that the most significant bits are sorted first then lesser ones, as you get closer to the destination. You will not find individual computers in a routing table. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org