> > All I know is that we have thousands of sites using private address space,
> > which completely falsifies any real data and makes it impossible to attach
> > any real meaning to concepts such as "running out of addresses".
>
> the original question was not whether address panic was justified. it asked
> for data on assignments/allocations. these are real measurable numbers
> which should be easily available, not a platform for political or social
> grandstanding.
I didn't notice any platforms or political or social grandstands. Maybe
there is some unstated context that implies an agenda.
Provided "data on assignments/allocations" means nothing more interesting
than what ARIN can say, there are surely easily measurable, available
numbers. Was such a relatively boring number the original topic?
Why should more interesting numbers be measurable, not to mention
available? Do you think that the number of IP addresses have been seen
in IP headers somewhere on the ICMP-Echo-Request-answering-without-NAT
Internet within the last 12 months is easily measurable? If you extend
the definition of the Internet to include the bazillions of hosts that
think they are are using RFC 1597 addresses and can still answer ICMP Echo
Requests, then what does it mean to ask how many addresses have been
allocated? If 100,000 hosts think they have been using 10.1.2.3 but have
really been using 10,000 ports on 1,000 dial-up IP addresses, do you count
them as 100,000, 1,000, or some other weight?
Those would be interesting numbers, but I doubt I'd believe more order of
(decimal) magnitude values without a lot of supporting argumentation.
Would you?
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
