[address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at att.net.il
Fri Apr 23 16:07:10 CEST 2004
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, James A. T. Rice wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > > Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff > > that should be read ;-) > > Its only a short draft, but I'm in disbelief that "A number of > organizations have expanded their autonomous private networks to the point > of exhausting the address space identified in RFC 1918" > > Sounds more like poor / lazy / classful subnetting to me, of which the > cure is is not allocating another 3 /8's of otherwise usuable globally > unique IP space. > > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm > amazed. Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas that might need that many. -Hank > > Regards > James > Hank Nussbacher
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]