Re: The power of default configurations

[Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>]

Paul Vixie wrote:

> > IMO, RFC1918 went off the track when both ISP's and registries started
> > asking their customers if they have "seriously considered using 1918 space
> > instead of applying for addresses". This caused many kinds of renumbering
> > nightmares, overlapping addresses, near death of ipv6, etc.
> >    
>
> just checking... does that mean you favour the one-prefix-per-asn implicit
> allocation model, or the ipv6 version of 1918 which intentionally doesn't
> overlap in order to serve inter-enterprise links, or what exactly?
>
>  
I'm saying that running out of IPv4 addresses would not be such a bad 
thing and because of this should not be unneccessarily delayed.

Pete