Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <ADE1A7A6-7177-4C77-8023-60058FDF076B () 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