was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"

Darden, Patrick S. darden at armc.org
Wed Aug 6 12:48:16 CDT 2008


I'll reply below with //s.  My point is still: most companies do not use RFC1918 correctly.  Your point seemed to be that it is not a large enough allocation of IPs for an international enterprise of 80K souls.  My rebuttal is: 16.5 million IPs isn't enough?
--p

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:31 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"


That's comical thanks. come back when you've done it.
//Ok.

Marshall is correct.
//Ok.

If you'd like to avoid constant renumbering you need a sparser 
allocation model.  You're still going to have collisions with your 
suppliers and acquisitions and some applications (eg labs, factory 
automation systems etc) have orders of magnitude large address space 
requirements than the number of humans using them implies.
//You used the metric of 80K people.  Now you say it is a bad metric when I reply using it.  Your fault, you compound it--you don't provide a better one.  What are we talking about then?  100 IPs per person--say each person has 10 PCs, 10 printers, 10 automated factory machines, 10 lab instruments, 49 servers and the soda machine on their network?  80,000*100==8 million IP addresses.  That leaves you with 8.5 million....  And that includes 80,000 networked soda machines.  I don't think you have that many soda machines.  Even on 5 continents.  Even with your growing Asian market, your suppliers, and the whole marketing team.


In practice indivudal sites might be assigned between a 22 and a 16 with 
sites with exotic requirements having multiple assignments potentially 
from different non-interconnected networks (but still with internal 
uniqueness requirements).
//Err.  Doing it wrong does not justify doing it wrong.






More information about the NANOG mailing list