Your point seemed to be that it is not a large enough allocation of IPs for an international enterprise of 80K souls. My rebuttal is: 16.5 million IPs isn't enough?
You don't seem to understand how IPv4 networks are designed and how that interacts with scale, i.e. the large sprawling networks that international enterprises have. You don't simply count out x addresses per employee. Instead, you design a subnet architecture that a) can grow at all levels, and b) can be cut off the network when you sell off a branch operation or two. This leads to large amounts of IP addresses used up in padding at all levels, which then leads to these organizations running out of RFC 1918 space, a more and more common occurence. This, in itself, is a good incentive to move to IPv6, since the seemingly wasteful subnet architecture is considered best practice with IPv6, and a ULA prefix or two gives you lots of space to keep growing.
What are we talking about then? 100 IPs per person--say each person has 10 PCs, 10 printers, 10 automated factory machines, 10 lab instruments, 49 servers and the soda machine on their network?
Nope. We are not talking about people, but about network architecture and topology. Two people in one office need two addresses. Put them in separate offices and they need two subnets. Topology dominates the design.
I don't think you have that many soda machines. Even on 5 continents. Even with your growing Asian market, your suppliers, and the whole marketing team.
I believe the first two companies to run out of RFC 1918 space (or to project that it would happen) are Comcast, and American cable provider in one continent, and a Japanese cable provider on a small Pacific island next to China.
//Err. Doing it wrong does not justify doing it wrong.
Cute sound bites does not make you an expert in anything. In any case, IPv4 is yesterday's news. Nowadays everyone is scrambling to integrate IPv6 into their networks and shift services onto IPv6. --Michael Dillon