On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <ade1a7a6-7177-4c77-8023-60058fdf0...@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
creative
$200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime
soon.
It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address
space
to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits in
the
address as flags for things. Suddenly you find yourself using a
prefix
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
one
trillion IP addresses.
--
TTFN,
patrick
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?
--
TTFN,
patrick
