Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Tue Feb 3 12:50:56 UTC 2009
On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <ADE1A7A6-7177-4C77-8023-60058FDF076B at ianai.net>,
> "Patrick W. Gilmor
> e" writes:
>> On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote:
>>>> Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more
>>>> $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime
>>> It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address
>>> to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits in
>>> address as flags for things. Suddenly you find yourself using a
>>> that should enough for a decent sized country in a half-rack.
>>> It's only slightly harder to imagine a /48 being wasted like that.
>> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
>> trillion IP addresses.
> But they will when you will exceeded 65536 networks.
Which is exactly what they should do - actually before that one would
hope. This is not the "$200/hour chcklehead consultant"'s fault, that
is the design.
Don't you love the idea of using 18446744073709551616 IP addresses to
number a point-to-point link?
More information about the NANOG