[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] Re: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pim van Pelt
pim at bit.nl
Fri Apr 23 19:38:27 CEST 2004
| > 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. IPv6. I do not see any good in allocating even one /8 in additional private address space. -- Met vriendelijke groet, BIT BV / Ing P.B. van Pelt PBVP1-RIPE (PGPKEY-4DCA7E5E)
- 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] Re: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]