Frank, This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much on the method used. I think we could react to the numbers more rationally if we discussed the method first. Thanks anyway Brian Frank Solensky wrote: > > Tony Dal Santo wrote: > > > > What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? > > Hilarie Orman, Scott Marcus and I will be working together over the next > few weeks to get a more up-to-date view of the world. As soon as we get > something together, we'll announce it to the list. > -- Frank
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Fred Baker
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Scott Brim
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Tony Dal Santo
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Iliff, Tina
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! itojun
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Dennis Glatting
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! James Aldridge
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Geoff Huston
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Frank Solensky
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Frank Solensky
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! David W. Morris
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Masataka Ohta
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Kurt Erik Lindqvist
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! M Dev
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Matt Holdrege
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Dave Robinson